Court Opinion

ID: 9841483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 16:10:49.779763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:07.979404
License: Public Domain

J-A20017-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  PATRICIA DAY                                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  GENUINE PARTS COMPANY                        :   No. 1564 MDA 2022
            v.                                 :
                                               :
                                               :
  SOUTHWORTH PRODUCTS                          :
  CORPORATION                                  :

                Appeal from the Order Entered October 17, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County
                         Civil Division at CV-2018-01307

  PATRICIA DAY                                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  GENUINE PARTS COMPANY                        :   No. 1597 MDA 2022
            v.                                 :
                                               :
                                               :
  SOUTHWORTH PRODUCTS                          :
  CORPORATION                                  :

                 Appeal from the Order Entered May 13, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County
                        Civil Division at CV-2018-01307

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A20017-23

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                        FILED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2023

       Patricia Day (Appellant) appeals from the order granting summary

judgment in favor of Genuine Parts Company (Genuine Parts), and dismissing

“all claims and cross claims” with prejudice. Order, 5/13/22. Appellant also

appeals from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Southworth

Products Corporation (Southworth), because “there is no direct claim” by

Appellant.    Order 10/17/22.       This Court consolidated the appeals by order

entered March 17, 2023. Upon review, we conclude Appellant is not entitled

to relief. Accordingly, we affirm.1

       The trial court summarized the underlying facts:

       This is a products liability action arising out of the explosion of an
       automotive battery at [Appellant’s] workplace on January 20,
       2017. The battery was used to power a lift adjacent to where
       [Appellant] was standing. [Appellant] sustained a severe lower
       right leg injury.

Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 2/10/23, at 1.

       On October 1, 2018, Appellant filed a complaint against Genuine Parts.2

According to Appellant, she “suffered serious and permanent injuries to her

right leg” as the result of the battery explosion. Complaint, 10/1/18, at 3, ¶

____________________________________________

1 This Court may affirm on any basis.   See, e.g., Clark v. Peugh, 257 A.3d
1260, 1271 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“We may affirm the trial court’s decision
... on any basis that is supported by the record”) (citation omitted).
2 Genuine Parts joined Southworth as an additional defendant after learning

Southworth manufactured the lift. Motion for Leave to Join Additional
Defendant, 2/28/20, at 3-4; Pa.R.C.P. 2252; Order, 5/19/20.

                                           -2-
J-A20017-23

5.   Appellant raised two counts of products liability (design defect and

negligent design). See id. at 4-5. Appellant averred, inter alia, that Genuine

Parts “designed and/or manufactured and/or assembled” the battery, “which

was in a defective condition.” Id. at 4, ¶ 12.

         On October 22, 2018, Genuine Parts filed preliminary objections based

on the “factual inspecificity” of Appellant’s complaint. Preliminary Objections,

10/22/18, at 4.       Genuine Parts averred, inter alia, that Appellant failed to

plead any facts “as to how the battery [was] ‘defective’ other than the fact

that an explosion incident occurred.” Id. at 4, ¶ 19.

         Genuine Parts correctly observes that after “some procedural wrangling

not relevant on appeal,” Appellant filed a second amended complaint on

January 8, 2019, which Genuine Parts answered on January 28, 2019, “with

general denials and averments of lack of information.” Genuine Parts’ Brief at

9. According to Genuine Parts, Appellant “file[d] suit, but t[ook] almost no

discovery.”     Id.     Genuine Parts states that Appellant “subpoenaed no

documents. And she produced no expert report to support her claims.” Id.

at 10.

         Likewise, Southworth states:

         From the onset of this case, Appellant was unresponsive to
         discovery, which is evidenced by a February 25, 2019 Order
         compelling discovery Responses from Appellant. Appellant only
         responded to [d]iscovery [d]emands after the [t]rial [c]ourt
         ordered it.

                                        -3-
J-A20017-23

Southworth’s Brief at 3.    When “discovery closed, on August 19, 2021,

Southworth filed a motion for summary judgment.” Id.

     The trial court, understating that the “procedural history leading up to

the present appeal is problematic,” detailed the proceedings that followed:

     On September 22, 2021, [] Genuine Parts [], filed a Motion for
     Summary Judgment on the basis that [Appellant] failed to
     preserve the battery and charger …; there was no evidence as to
     how the battery was defective, and no expert report was ever
     obtained to pursue a products liability claim of this nature.
     [Appellant] failed to file any response to the motion pursuant to
     Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.3(d). There was a conference on April 12, 2022,
     with the court … to determine if discovery was complete in relation
     to the prior discovery deadline of March 2, 2022. Following the
     conference, an order was entered [directing] that affidavits be
     filed within 30 days as to the events relating to discovery between
     December 1, 2021, and March 2, 2022. [Appellant] did not file an
     affidavit, but additional Defendant[, Southworth,] filed an affidavit
     that no additional discovery was requested until the deadline for
     completion of all discovery.

           There appearing that no further discovery was directed to
     the court’s consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment on
     behalf of [], Genuine Parts [], th[e trial] court entered an order
     granting Summary Judgment that was docketed in the
     Prothonotary’s office on May 13, 2022.

            Th[e trial] court was not presented with any discovery by
     [Appellant] as to how she was going to meet her burden of proof
     at trial. …

           The type of product here, an automotive battery, may have
     exploded for a myriad … of reasons. [Appellant] cannot simply
     rely on the allegations of h[er] pleadings. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.3(c).
     She did not counter the manufacturer’s Motion for Summary
     Judgment [by identifying] evidence essential to meeting the

                                     -4-
J-A20017-23

       Tincher [v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014)]
       requirements ….3

              The Order granting Summary Judgment in favor of
       Defendant, Genuine Parts Company, was entered by the
       Prothonotary on May 13, 2022; however, the docket does not
       reflect that the Prothonotary provided notice of the entry of this
       order to each party’s attorney of record as required by Pa.R.C.P.
       236(a)(2)[. Appellant] filed on November 10, 2022, a Motion to
       Reopen the Judgment due to lack of notice of the entry of the
       order granting Summary Judgment. However, this court did not
       have any opportunity to consider it, as [Appellant] filed this appeal
       to the Superior Court five days later.

             On November 30, 2022, an order was entered directing
       [Appellant] to file of record a concise statement of the matters
       complained of on appeal within twenty days. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
       To date none was ever filed of record and served upon the
       undersigned. Rather, [Appellant’s counsel] sent a letter dated
       December 15, 2022, to chambers[,] where he asserts as a reason
       for the appeal, that “the battery explod[ing] by somebody
____________________________________________

3 The law regarding strict liability is clear.   “To demonstrate a breach of duty
in a strict liability matter, a plaintiff must prove that a seller (manufacturer or
distributor) placed on the market a product in a ‘defective condition.’”
Tincher, 104 A.3d at 384.

       The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A remains the law of
       Pennsylvania …. In Tincher[, …] our Supreme Court declined to
       adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts, but clarified that a plaintiff
       could prove defective design in two ways: 1) by showing that the
       product’s danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average
       consumer (the consumer expectations test); or 2) that a
       reasonable person would conclude that the probability and gravity
       of the harm caused by the product outweigh the burden or cost of
       taking precautions (the risk-utility standard).

Dunlap v. Fed. Signal Corp., 194 A.3d 1067, 1069–70 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(citing Tincher, 104 A.3d at 399).

                                           -5-
J-A20017-23

      depressing a button to operate a lift ... in and of itself, confirms
      that there was a malfunction within the battery.”

            [Appellant’s] contention appears to be a res ipsa loquitur
      theory. This would be contrary to the required elements of a
      products liability case as established in Tincher, supra.
      [Appellant] further states in the letter that her position “is
      supported by the report and corresponding deposition testimony
      that infers that fluid within the battery evaporated causing the
      battery to overcharge.” Yet, [Appellant] never engaged an expert
      or obtained an expert report, nor did she ever respond to the
      Motion for Summary Judgment by pointing to any deposition
      testimony. Again, there is nothing specific [Appellant] can proffer
      to meet her burden of proof under Tincher, supra.

           The letter from [Appellant’s] counsel also references as a
      reason for appeal this court’s grant of Summary Judgment to
      Defendant, Southworth Products Corporation, by order dated
      October 17, 2022. [Appellant’s] assertion in this regard is that
      [counsel] was unable to depose a corporate representative of
      Southworth Products Corporation, the manufacturer of the lift.

Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 2/10/23, at 1-4 (footnotes omitted, one footnote

added).

      Our review confirms, inter alia, that the trial court directed Appellant,

“pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), … to file of record within twenty-one (21)

days of the docket entry of this Order, and serve on the undersigned, a concise

statement of the matters complained of on appeal of the Orders dated May

13, 2022, and October 17, 2022.” Order, 11/30/22 (emphasis added). The

order advises that any issue “not properly included in the concise statement

                                     -6-
J-A20017-23

of the matters complained of on appeal shall be deemed waived.”            Id.

Appellant did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement.4

       Although Appellant did not file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, the trial

court issued a Statement in Lieu of Opinion explaining its reasons for granting

summary judgment. Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 2/10/23, at 1-5. As quoted

above, the trial court stated that no Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement “was ever

filed of record and served upon the undersigned.” Id. at 3. The trial court

relayed that Appellant’s counsel “sent a letter dated December 15, 2022, to

chambers [asserting] a reason for the appeal.” Id. There is no December 15,

2022, correspondence from counsel in the record. On February 17, 2023, the

Northumberland County Prothonotary certified the record and transmitted it

to this Court for review.

       Upon receipt of the certified record, we issued a rule to show cause,

stating

       it appears that Appellant failed to file any opposition to the
       motions for summary judgment and therefore all issues have been
       waived. See Devine v. Hutt, 863 A.2d 1160, 1169 (Pa. Super.
       2004) (finding issues waived because arguments not raised
       initially before trial court in opposition to summary judgment
       cannot be raised for first time on appeal).

              Accordingly, Appellant shall show cause, in the form of a
       letter addressed to the Prothonotary of this Court with a copy to
       opposing counsel, why the appeals should not be dismissed. The
       letter shall be transmitted so as to be actually received by the
____________________________________________

4 The record indicates the order directing Appellant’s compliance with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was sent to counsel for Appellant, Genuine Parts, and
Southworth.

                                           -7-
J-A20017-23

      Prothonotary of this Court within ten (10) days from the date of
      this Order. Failure to comply with this Order may result in
      dismissal of the appeals without further notice.

           The briefing schedules are SUSPENDED pending further
      Order of Court.

Order, 3/1/23.

      Appellant filed a response stating, inter alia, that “it is inexplicable as to

why the[] responses in opposition to the summary judgment motions were

not provided to [the Superior] Court,” and “there is no ambiguity in

[Appellant’s] position that the same were timely filed and considered by the

lower court ….” Response to Rule to Show Cause, 3/7/23, at 1-2.

      This Court subsequently issued an order discharging the rule to show

cause, consolidating the appeals, and directing a new briefing schedule.

Order, 3/17/23. Pertinently, the order stated:

      The parties shall note that this Court may consider only the facts
      which have been duly certified in the record on appeal. See
      Pa.R.A.P. 1921 and Comments following. To the extent the
      Appellant avers the record is incomplete, Appellant may seek relief
      in the trial court to supplement the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 1926.
      If the trial court grants Appellant the right to supplement the
      record[,] the trial court shall transmit such supplementation to
      this Court and such supplementation shall become part of the
      record on appeal.

Id.

      Appellant did not seek to supplement the certified record. On April 28,

2023, Appellant filed a reproduced record. In response, Genuine Parts filed

an application to strike “non-record parts of the reproduced record.”

Application to Strike, 5/19/23, at 1-5. Genuine Parts also requested this Court

                                       -8-
J-A20017-23

“strike or disregard those parts of Appellant’s Brief that rely on this non-record

material.”     Id. at 1.   Genuine Parts, inter alia, observed that “this Court

already noted deficiencies in the certified record,” and provided Appellant

“with explicit instructions on how to supplement the certified record, if

necessary.” Id. at 2. By per curiam order, this Court denied the application

to strike “without prejudice to the moving party’s right to again raise this issue

….” Order, 5/26/23. The case was subsequently assigned to this panel for

disposition.

      Appellant presents the following issues for review:

      WHETHER IT WAS ERROR FOR [THE TRIAL COURT] TO GRANT
      SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEN THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF
      A MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT THAT MUST BE PRESENTED TO A
      JURY IN LIEU OF DISPOSING OF THIS MATTER THROUGH
      SUMMARY JUDGMENT[?]

               a. IT WAS PRE-MATURE FOR THE COURT TO GRANT
                  SUMMARY   JUDGEMENT    PRIOR TO THE FULL
                  COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY[.]

               b. APPELLANT HAS A RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OF HER
                  PEERS[.]

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

      We review the grant of summary judgment in the context of the entire

record, and in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matthews

v. Prospect Crozer, LLC, 243 A.3d 226, 228 (Pa. Super. 2020). We may

reverse a grant of summary judgment only if the trial court committed an

error of law or an abuse of discretion. Id. at 228–29.

                                       -9-
J-A20017-23

      A trial court properly grants summary judgment “if, after the completion

of discovery relevant to the motion ... an adverse party who will bear the

burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the

cause of action or defense[.]” Id. at 228 (citing H & R Block E. Tax Servs.,

Inc. v. Zarilla, 69 A.3d 246, 248 (Pa. Super. 2013); Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(2)).

      Motions for summary judgment necessarily and directly implicate
      the plaintiff’s proof of the elements of her cause of action.
      Grandelli v. Methodist Hosp., 777 A.2d 1138, 1145 n.7 (Pa.
      Super. 2001). … In other words, “whenever there is no genuine
      issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause
      of action or defense, 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.
      Id.; Abbott v. Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP, 805
      A.2d 547, 552 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 708,
      827 A.2d 1200 (2003). Thus, a record that supports summary
      judgment either (1) shows the material facts are undisputed or
      (2) contains insufficient evidence of facts to make out a prima
      facie cause of action or defense. Grandelli, [v. Methodist
      Hosp., 777 A.2d 1138,] 1143 [(Pa. Super. 2001)] (citing
      Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2 Note).

Chenot v. A.P. Green Servs., Inc., 895 A.2d 55, 61 (Pa. Super. 2006).

      “Therefore, where a motion for summary judgment has been made and

properly supported, parties seeking to avoid the imposition of summary

judgment must show by specific facts in their depositions, answers to

interrogatories, admissions or affidavits that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

Marks v. Tasman, 589 A.2d 205, 206 (Pa. 1991). See also First Wisconsin

Trust Co. v. Strausser, 653 A.2d 688, 695 (Pa. Super. 1995) (holding

defendant’s argument that lack of discovery bars summary judgment is

                                      - 10 -
J-A20017-23

“unsympathetic,” as defendant did not request discovery in the two years

since the answer was filed).

     Appellant claims the trial court erred in granting summary judgment,

“as there is sufficient evidence that a material issue of fact exists in this

matter.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. Appellant asserts that discovery was not

complete. Id. at 11. According to Appellant, “the record … was not fully

developed” because the trial court “failed to compel the deposition of

witnesses” from Genuine Parts and Southworth. Id.

     Genuine Parts argues Appellant “cannot prove her case on the merits.”

Genuine Parts’ Brief at 15. However, Genuine Parts initially argues:

           First, the Court could dismiss the appeal or affirm, because
     the certified record lacks any response to the appellees’ motions
     for summary judgment or a Rule 1925(b) statement, and
     [Appellant]’s Brief and Reproduced Record contain substantial
     defects. Effective appellate review requires issue preservation,
     creation of a supporting record, and briefing of those issues.
     [Appellant] fails on all three points.

Id. (emphasis in original); see also id. at 17-20.

     In response to the various claims by the trial court and Genuine Parts

regarding Appellant’s procedural missteps, Appellant states:

     The [trial court] infers in [the] Statement in Lieu of Opinion, that
     Counsel for the Appellant failed to provide an affidavit that was
     requested by order dated April 12, 2022. Likewise, the [trial
     court] indicates that this counsel failed to file a concise statement
     of the matter complained of on appeal. Further, upon appeal we
     learned that the [trial court] failed to include the Appellant’s
     Response and Response Briefs to the Motions for Summary
     Judgment in the certified record. However, the Appellant has
     consistently provided to the [trial c]ourt all documents required
     by hand delivery and/or overnight mail. However, it is now very

                                    - 11 -
J-A20017-23

      apparent that none of those documents were properly docketed
      by the [trial c]ourt upon receipt[,] over which the Appellant has
      no control and for which we take issue[,] as we have consistently
      complied with all required filings.

Appellant’s Brief at 9-10 n.1.

      The above claim is specious. Appellant disregards the trial court’s order

directing compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), as well as the express language

of Rule 1925.    The trial court ordered Appellant, “pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b), … to file of record within twenty-one (21) days of the docket entry

of this Order, and serve on the undersigned, a concise statement of the

matters complained of on appeal of the Orders dated May 13, 2022, and

October 17, 2022.” Order, 11/30/22 (emphasis added).

      Rule 1925(b) is unequivocal:

      (b) Direction to file statement of errors complained of on
      appeal; instructions to the appellant and the trial court. If
      the judge entering the order giving rise to the notice of appeal
      (“judge”) desires clarification of the errors complained of on
      appeal, the judge may enter an order directing the appellant to
      file of record in the trial court and serve on the judge a concise
      statement of the errors complained of on appeal (“Statement”).

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) (bold emphasis in original, underline added). Like the trial

court’s order, Rule 1925 cautions that issues “not included in the Statement

and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4)

are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).

      This Court has repeatedly held that “‘failure to comply with the minimal

requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in automatic waiver of the

                                     - 12 -
J-A20017-23

issues raised.’” Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs,

Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (emphasis in original)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005)).

“Whenever a trial court orders an appellant to file a concise statement of

[errors] complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), the appellant must

comply in a timely manner.” Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp, 88 A.3d at 225

(italics in original, citations omitted).

      “[I]n determining whether an appellant has waived issues on appeal

based on non-compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925, it is the trial court’s order that

triggers an appellant’s obligation[;] ... therefore, we look first to the language

of that order.” U.S. Bank, N.A. for Certificateholders of LXS 2007-7N Tr.

Fund v. Hua, 193 A.3d 994, 997 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). As

discussed above, the trial court ordered Appellant, “pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b), … to file of record within twenty-one (21) days of the docket entry

of this Order, and serve on the undersigned, a concise statement of the

matters complained of on appeal,” and advised that any issue “not properly

included in the concise statement of the matters complained of on appeal shall

be deemed waived.” Order, 11/30/22 (emphasis added). Appellant failed to

file a concise statement of record.

      This Court has observed that the “filing requirement is distinct from the

service requirement in that the filing requirement ensures that the Concise

Statement becomes part of the certified record.” Everett Cash Mut. Ins.

                                       - 13 -
J-A20017-23

Co. v. T.H.E. Ins. Co., 804 A.2d 31, 34 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted)

(finding appellant waived issues where appellant “indicate[d], at best, that the

Concise Statement was served on the trial judge but never filed as part of

the official record.”). We explained:

      It remains undisputed that these documents were not made part
      of the certified record on appeal[] and were never listed on the
      trial docket. …

                                        ***

             … [W]e conclude that Appellant’s issues are waived for
      failing to file a Concise Statement and for failing to ensure that
      the Concise Statement was made part of the certified record. “It
      is the obligation of the appellant to make sure that the record
      forwarded to an appellate court contains those documents
      necessary to allow a complete and judicious assessment of the
      issues raised on appeal.”       Hrinkevich v. Hrinkevich, 450
      Pa.Super. 405, 676 A.2d 237, 240 (1996) (citation omitted).
      “Under our Rules of Appellate Procedure, those documents which
      are not part of the ‘official record’ forwarded to this Court are
      considered to be non-existent.” D’Ardenne v. Strawbridge &
      Clothier, Inc., 712 A.2d 318, 326 (Pa.Super.1998) (citation
      omitted), appeal denied, 557 Pa. 647, 734 A.2d 394 (1998).
      “[T]hese deficiencies may not be remedied by inclusion in a brief
      in the form of a reproduced record.” Id. Similarly, these
      deficiencies cannot be cured by indicating that the relevant
      document was simply mailed to the office of the trial judge
      but not filed of record. …

Everett Cash Mut. Ins. Co., 804 A.2d at 33-34 (emphasis added).

      After careful review, we conclude Appellant has waived all issues by

failing to properly file and serve the court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement.

This Court has warned:

                                     - 14 -
J-A20017-23

     [O]ur Supreme Court does not countenance anything less than
     stringent application of waiver pursuant to Rule 1925(b): “[A]
     bright-line rule eliminates the potential for inconsistent results ...
     Succinctly put, it is no longer within this Court’s discretion to
     ignore the internal deficiencies of Rule 1925(b) statements.

Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., 88 A.3d 224.

     We have further opined that to “hold otherwise would invite abuse. Such

a ruling would provide litigants with an opportunity to salvage appeals

otherwise waived or improperly preserved by procedural error ….” U.S. Bank,

N.A., 193 A.3d at 998 (concluding appellants waived all issues).

     Consistent with the record and legal precedent, we affirm the orders

granting summary judgment in favor of Genuine Parts and Southworth.

     Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/22/2023

                                    - 15 -