J-S27044-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
ELIZETH JUAREZ, OSCAR PEREZ, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KEVIN PORQUILLO, JOAQUIN : PENNSYLVANIA PORQUILLO, SHELLEY ROJAS, ANGEL : ROMAN, JULIO JOYA, JANE ROE, : JANET ROE AND JOHN DOE :
:
Appellants :
: : No. 417 EDA 2025
v. :
: :
JINJING WANG :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 29, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 230303594
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 3, 2025
Elizeth Juarez, Oscar Perez, Kevin Porquillo, Joaquin Porquillo, Shelley
Rojas, Angel Roman, Julio Joya, Jane Roe, Janet Roe, and John Doe
(collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the January 29, 2025 order granting
the motion for summary judgment filed by Appellee, Jinjing Wang, and
dismissing Appellants’ amended complaint. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:
On or around 4:00 AM on March 19, 2023, a fire broke out in the row home in which [Appellants] reside — a property owned by [Appellee]. At all relevant times, ten (10) people were present in the premises — a
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S27044-25
three (3) bedroom, two (2) story row home in South Philadelphia. No lease establishing a landlord-tenant relationship has been produced for the record, though a lease is referenced in [Appellant] Elizeth Juarez’s supplemental answers to [Appellee’s] interrogatories of September 14, 2023.
[Appellants] aver “severe and horrific physical, emotional, and psychological harm” stemming from the fire. In support of their claims, [Appellants] state that a firefighter made statements to [Appellants] after the fire suggesting that the fire started in the basement from the fuse box and spread to the rest of the premises. In further support of their claims, [Appellants] have put forth a report of fire alarm produced by the Philadelphia Fire Department. Additionally, and in further support of their claims, [Appellants] state that prior to the fire, on February 26, 2023, [Appellant] Elizeth Juarez notified [Appellee] or her agents via text messaging that the premises required electrical repairs. [Appellants] also cite to various interrogatories in support of their claims.
The record reveals that [Appellants] have not put forth a liability expert…[.]
Trial court memorandum opinion, 1/29/25 at 1-2 (citations and extraneous
capitalization omitted).
The procedural history of this case, as gleaned from the trial court
opinion, is as follows:
On August 21, 2023, [Appellants] filed the operative amended complaint, alleging negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium claims. On January 25, 2024, [Appellee] filed an answer with new matter to [Appellants’] amended complaint. On March 15, 2024, [Appellants] filed a reply to new matter.
3
J-S27044-25
On August 13, 2024, the parties stipulated to the withdrawal of [Appellants’] claim for loss of consortium. On December 2, 2024, [Appellee] filed the instant motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all of [Appellants’] claims. On December 9, 2024, [Appellants] filed their reply in opposition to [Appellee’s] motion for summary judgment. On December 18, 2024, [Appellee] fled a reply brief in support of [his] motion for summary judgment. On December 27, 2024, [Appellants] filed a reply in opposition to [Appellee’s] December 18, 2024 reply brief.
Id. at 2-3 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
As noted, on January 29, 2025, the trial court filed an opinion and order
granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellants’
amended complaint. On February 4, 2025, Appellants filed a timely notice of
appeal. That same day, Appellants filed a 14-page Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement. The trial court filed a comprehensive Rule 1925(a) opinion on
March 4, 2025.
Appellants raise the following issues for our review:
1. Did the [trial court] mistake the law improperly finding that the [Appellants] did not establish factual disputes on their prima facie case of landlording (sic) negligence?
2. Did the [trial court] mistake the law improperly finding that the [Appellants’] notice to [Appellee] did not establish negligence?
4
J-S27044-25
3. Did the [trial court] apply mistaken authority, Marrazzo[1], to analyze the causation of the [Appellants’] injury?
4. Did the [trial court] mistake the law shifting a defense-side burden of proof onto the [Appellants]?
5. Did the [trial court] mistake the law linking the cause or origin of the fire to the [Appellants’] injuries?
6. Did the [trial court] mistake the law on expert opinion testimony versus lay opinion testimony, and lay eyewitness testimony that does not leave the jury guessing?
7. Did the [trial court] mistake the law by drawing inferences of spoliation against the non-moving [Appellants], and in terms of precluding evidence of that spoliation?
8. Did the [trial court] mistake the law as it drew inferences against the non-moving [Appellants] and in the moving-[Appellee’s] favor[?]
Appellants’ brief at 1-3 (extraneous capitalization omitted; footnote citation
added).
Our standard of review of a trial court’s order granting summary
judgment is well settled:
In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court’s standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. A trial court should grant summary judgment only in cases where the record contains no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
____________________________________________
1 Marrazzo v. Scranton Nehi Bottling Co., 223 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1966).
5
J-S27044-25
law. The moving party has the burden to demonstrate the absence of any issue of material fact, and the trial court must evaluate all the facts and make reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. The trial court is further required to resolve any doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party and may grant summary judgment only where the right to such a judgment is clear and free from doubt. This Court has held that the summary judgment standard that a trial court must view the facts, and all reasonable inferences, in a light most favorable to the non- moving party clearly includes all expert testimony and reports submitted by the non-moving party or provided during discovery; and, so long as the conclusions contained within those reports are sufficiently supported, the trial judge cannot sua sponte assail them in an order and opinion granting summary judgment. An appellate court may reverse a grant of summary judgment only if the trial court erred in its application of the law or abused its discretion.
Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc., 242 A.3d 637, 649–650 (Pa. 2020) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2 governs motions for
summary judgment and provides, in relevant part, as follows:
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law
(1) 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, or
(2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at
6
J-S27044-25
trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury.
Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2.
It is well settled in this Commonwealth that “[a] tenant seeking to
recover damages stemming from the condition of a rental property may
pursue claims sounding in ordinary negligence or a breach of the implied
warranty of habitability.” Echeverria v. Holley, 142 A.3d 29, 34 (Pa.Super.
2016) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 169 A.3d 17 (Pa. 2017). To
establish a prima facie cause of action for negligence, the following elements
must be proven: “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty or obligation
recognized by law; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) a causal
connection existed between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury;
and (4) actual damages occurred.” Grove v. Port Authority of Allegheny
County, 218 A.3d 877, 889 (Pa. 2019) (citation omitted).
Following a thorough review of the record, including the briefs of the
parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned analysis of the trial court,
it is our determination that Appellants’ plethora of interrelated claims on
appeal warrant no relief. The trial court’s January 29, 2025 memorandum
opinion and March 4, 2025 Rule 1925(a) opinion comprehensively discussed
each of Appellant’s issues and concluded that they were without merit. We
find that the conclusions of the trial court are supported by competent
evidence and are clearly free of legal error.
7
J-S27044-25
Specifically, we agree with the trial court that Appellants failed to
establish a prima facie cause of action for negligence by failing to introduce
expert testimony to establish the cause and origin of the fire. The trial court
properly found that, contrary to Appellants’ contention, the fire report does
not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the cause and origin of the fire.
We also agree with the trial court that Appellant Julio Joya’s claim that an
unidentified Philadelphia Fire Department firefighter told him that the cause
of the fire was electrical is inadmissible hearsay, and thus cannot be
introduced to support Appellants’ negligence claims. We also discern no abuse
of discretion on the part of the trial court in finding that a spoliation sanction
was not necessary because the record clearly demonstrates that Appellants
had ample opportunity to conduct a site inspection of fire-damaged premises
before repairs. We further agree with the trial court that it was Appellants’
burden to prove what duty Appellee breached, the cause and origin of the fire,
and whether the fire was caused by Appellee’s alleged breach of her duty. We
find that the trial court properly concluded that because Appellants failed to
adduce evidence in support of a prima facie cause of action for negligence,
summary judgment in Appellee’s favor was entirely warranted. See trial court
memorandum opinion, 1/29/25 at 3-9; trial court Rule 1925(a) opinion,
3/4/25 at 2-7.
Accordingly, we adopt the comprehensive January 25 and March 4, 2025
opinions of the Honorable Edward Wright as our own for purposes of this
8
J-S27044-25
appellate review. The parties are instructed to attach the opinions of the trial
court in any filings referencing this Court’s decision.
Order affirmed.
Date: 10/3/2025
Circulated 09/25/2025 08:42 PM
g;'··-· [2 g:····12
IN THE IN IN THE COURT
THE COURT OF
COURT OF COMMON
OF COMMON PLEAS
COMMON PLEAS
PLEAS CiV;L
CIVL ', • -- &ION cit., ...-
..i.•,;;Ibi• ciow FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION TRIAL TRIAL DIVISION--- CIVIL
DIVISION CIVIL
CIVIL
Ms. Elizeth Ms. Ms. Elizeth Elizeth Juarez, Juarez, et Juarez, et al.,
et at.,
al., MARCH TERM, MARCH TERM, 2023
2023
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Plaintiffs No. 03594 No. No. 03594
v. V. v.
Control No. Control Control No. 24120484
No. 24120484
24120484
Jinjing Jinjing Wang, Jinjing Wang, Wang,
Defendant Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION MEMORANDUM OPINION IN SUPPORT OPINION IN
IN SUPPORT
SUPPORT OF
OF JANUARY
.JANUARY 29,
29, 2025
2025 ORDER
ORDER
Before the Before Before the Court the Court is
Court is Defendant
is Defendant Jinjing
Defendant Jinjing Wang's
Jinjing Wang's
Wang's (hereinafter
(hereinafter "Wang") Motion for "Wang") Motion
(hereinafter "Wang") Motion for Summary for Summary
Judgment seeking Judgment Judgment seeking dismissal seeking dismissal with prejudice dismissal with
with prejudice of
prejudice of all
of all of
all ofPlaintiffs'
of Plaintiffs' claims.
Plaintiffs' claims. For
claims. For the
For the following
the following reasons,
following reasons,
reasons,
Wang's Motion for Wang's Motion Wang's Motion for Summary for Summary Judgment is
Summary Judgment
Judgment is granted, and
is granted,
granted, and Plaintiffs' claims and Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs' claims
claims against
against Wang
Wang are Wang are
are
dismissed. dismissed.
FACTS FACTS
aa fire broke
On or around 4:00 AM on March 19, 2023, a broke out in the out in the row
row home row in which
home in home in which
which
Plaintiffs reside reside---a
—aa property owned by Wang. Amended CompI.
Wang, See Amended CompL at [1, Compl. at
at ¶1, attached as Exhibit attached as
as Exhibit A.
Exhibit A.
A.
ten ((10)
At all relevant times, ten ten present in the premises 10) people were present
present premises --a premises —a
-- three
a three (3)
three (3) bedroom, two
(3) bedroom,
bedroom, two (2)
two (2)
story story row row home home in
in South Philadelphia.
Philadelphia. Id. at 730.
¶30. No at y30. No lease
lease establishing aa landlord-tenant establishing a landlord-tenant
relationship has been produced for the record, though a produced for aa lease is referenced in Plaintiff Elizeth lease is Eli.zeth
Juarez's Supplemental Answers to Defendant Wang's Interrogatories of 14, 2023.
of September 14, See 2023. See 2023.
Juarez's Supplemental Answers to Defendant Wang's Interrogatories of September 14, 2023 at
P. 7, attached as Exhibit C.
Plaintiffs aver han"
aver "severe and horrific physical, emotional, and psychological harm"
hann"
fom the fire. See Exhibit A stemming fiom A at x{48. In support of 148, In o£ their claims, Plaintiffs state that a
a
firefighter made statements to Plaintiffs after the fire suggesting that the fire started in the
y55-56; ¶55-56; Juarez Dep. at
basement from the fuse box and spread to the rest of the premises. Id. at \y55-56;
a
85:3-16, attached as Exhibit D. In further support of their claims, Plaintiffs have put forth a
Report of Fire Alarm produced by the Philadelphia Fire Department. See Report of Fire Alarm,
attached as Exhibit E. Additionally, and in further support of their claims, Plaintiffs state that
prior to the fire, on February 26, 2023, Plaintiff Elizeth Juarez notified Wang or her agents via
text messaging that the premises required electrical repairs. See Exhibit A at y57.
'j[S7. ¶57. Plaintiffs also
claims. See Exhibit C; See Wang's Response to of their claims.
cite to various interrogatories in support o£
(Second Set), attached as Interrogatories (Second Interrogatories as Exhibit F; See Rojas Supplemental Answer to to
Defendant Wang's Interrogatories of September 14, 2023, attached as Exhibit G.
that Plaintiffs have not put forth The record reveals that forth a a liability expert, and Discovery has
now ended. See August 30, 2024 Revised Case Management Order, attached as Exhibit B.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative operative Amended Complaint, Complaint, alleging
Infliction of
Negligent Infliction
Negligence, Negligent ofEmotional Emotional Distress,
Distress, and
and Loss
Loss of
of Consortium
Consortium claims.
claims. On
On
25, 2024, January 25, January 2024, Wang filed an Wang filed an Answer New Matter with New
Answer with Matter to to Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
Amended Complaint.
On March On March 15, 15, 2024, 2024, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs filed
filed a
a Reply New Matter.
to New
Reply to Matter.
On August On August 13, 13, 2024,
2024, the
the parties
parties stipulated the withdrawal to the
stipulated to withdrawal of Plaintiffs' claim ofPlaintiffs' claim for
for Loss
Loss
of Consortium. of Consortium. On.
On December
December 2,
2, 2024,
2024, Wang
Wang filed the instant
filed the instant Motion
Motion for
for Summary Judgment
Summary Judgment
seeking dismissal seeking dismissal of al ofall
all of
of Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs' claims.
claims. On
On December
December 9,
9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Reply in their Reply in
Opposition to Wang's Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 18, 2024, Wang filed fled aa
Reply Brief in Support of Wang's Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 27, 2024,
aReply in Opposition to Wang's December 18, 2024 Reply Brief.
Plaintiffs filed a
DISCUSSION
Wang argues that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment, alleging that the Plaintiffs
have failed to produce evidence offacts essential to their causes of action. See Defs. Mot. Summ.
¶15, attached as Exhibit H. Specifically, Wang alleges that summary judgment is J. at [15,
appropriate, where: (7) Plaintiffs have produced no liability expert report establishing breach of where: (i)
duty and causation;
causation; (ii) a a one
one (1) page Report of Fire Alarm purported by Plaintiffs to identify
the cause and origin of the fire is inadmissible hearsay which cannot be used to establish breach
of duty and causation; and, and, (iii) the testimony of Plaintiff Julio Joya (hereinafter "Joya") as to Joya (hereinafter
what aafirefighter said to him regarding the cause and origin of the fire is inadmissible hearsay
which cannot be used to establish breach of duty and causation.
Under Pa. R.C.P. 1035.2, aaproper grant of summary judgment depends upon an
evidentiary record that either either (1) shows the material facts are undisputed or or (2) contains
aprimafacie cause of action or defense. Rauch v.
insufficient evidence of facts to make out a
Mike Mayer, 783 A.2d 815, 823 Mike-Mayer, (Pa. Super. 2001). Under Rule 1035.202), 823 (Pa. 1035.2(2), if a adefendant is the
moving party, they may make the showing necessary to support the entrance of summary
judgment by pointing to materials which indicate that the plaintiff is unable to satisfy an element
of the cause of action. Id. at 824.
tenant seeking A tenant A seeking to
to recover
recover damages
damages stemming
stemming fiom the condition from the condition of
of a rental property
a rental property
pursue claims sounding in ordinary negligence may pursue or a negligence or of the a breach of the implied
implied warranty of
warranty of
habitability. L+cheverria ». Holley, 142 A.3d 29, 34 Echeverria v.
• 34 (Pa.
(Pa. Super. 2016).
To establish To establish a viable cause a viable cause of
of action
action of
ofnegligence
negligence against
against Wang,
Wang, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs must
must adduce
adduce
a duty; 2) Wang failed to conform with said evidence suggesting that: 1) Wang owed Plaintiffs a
3) that
duty; 3) duty; that there there is
is a
a close
close causal connection between causal connection between Wang's failure and Wang's failure and the
the resulting
resulting injuries;
injuries;
that Plaintiffs 4) that and, 4) and, sustained actual Plaintiffs sustained actual loss loss or
or damage.
damage. See
See Ivey
Ney v.v. Axelrod, 723 A.2d Axelrod, 723 A.2d 719,
719, 721
721
(Pa. Super. (Pa. Super. 1999). "The mere 1999). "The
The mere happening
happening of
ofan
an accident
accident does
does not entitle the
not entitle injured person the injured person to
to a
a
[a] plaintiff
verdict; [a] verdict; [a] plaintiff must show that defendant owed him him a
a duty and
and that
that duty was.breached."
duty was. breached."
Engel v.• Parkway Engel Parlway Co., Parkway Co., 266
266 A.2d 685, 687
A.2d 685, 687 (Pa. 1970).
(Pa. 1970).
I. I. Lack of
Lack Expert Testimony
ofExpert Testimony
Wang contends Wang contends that
that Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs' failure
failure to
to produce a liability
produce a liability expert expert to
to establish
establish breach
breach of
of
duty and duty and causation are fatal causation are to Plaintiffs'
fatal to claims sounding Plaintiffs' claims sounding in negligence.
innegligence.
It isis well-established It well-establishedthat "expeit opinion that "expert
"expert opiniontestimony
testimony is proper only is proper where formation only where ofan formation of an
opinion on opinion on a a subject
subject requires
requires knowledge,
knowledge, information,
information, or
or skill beyondwhat
skillbeyond possessed by what isispossessed the by the
ordinaryjuror." ordinary juror." Commonwealth Carter, 589 Commonwealth v.v. Carter, 589 A.2d 1133, 1134 ( A.2d 1133,1134 (Pa. Super. 1991).
Pa. Super. 1991). In negligence In negligence
i actions, "[c]xpert actions, testimony isis not "[e]xperttestimony notrequired required`where
'wherethe matterunder
the matter under investigation investigation isis so
so simple,
simple,
and the and thelack lack of
ofskill
skill or
orwant
wantof
ofcare
careso
so obvious,
obvious, as to be
asto be within therange
within the range of
ofthe
the ordinary
ordinary
experience and experience comprehensionof andcomprehension ofeven
evennonprofessional
nonprofessionalpersons."' Welshv.• persons." Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d Bulger, 698 A.2d
581, 586 581, 586n. 111 (Pa.
n. I (Pa. 1997)
1997)(quoting Chandlerv.• Coop (quoting Chandler 265 A.2d Cook, 265 A.2d 794,
794, 796
796 n. 1(
n. 1 (Pa. Norisis 1970)). Nor
Pa. 1970)).
experttestimony expert asto testimony as causationrequired to causation required"where thereisisan "wherethere obvious causal anobvious causalrelationship"
relationship"
between the injury complained of and the alleged negligent act. Lattanze v.
• Silverstrini, 448 A.2d
608 (Pa. Super. 1982).
605, 608
An obvious causal relationship exists when the injuries are either an an "immediate and
direct" or the "natural and probable citing Tabuteau v.
probable" result of the alleged negligent act. Id. (citing (
G. & London G. & A., Ltd., 40 A.2d 396 (Pa. 1945)). "The two must be 396 (Pa. be `'so so closely connected and so
readily apparent that a a layman could diagnose
diagnose (except
(except by guessing) the causal connection' ..."
connection'..."
608 (quoting Smith ».
Lattanze, 448 A.2d at 608 v. German, 253 A.2d 107, 109 109 (Pa. 1969)).
1909)).
However, the fact-finder, be it the jury or the court, may not be permitted to reach its
verdict or decision merely on the basis of guess or conjecture but that there must be evidence,
direct or circumstantial, upon which logically its conclusion may be based. Marrazzo • v. Scranton
Nehi.bottling Nehi 1966) (citing Smith v. Bell Telephone Co. of Bottling Co., 223 A.2d 17, 21 (Pa. 1966) Penna, 153 ofPenna,
A.2d 477 477 (Pa. 1959)).
While testimony from the laymen Plaintiffs in this action is relevant to the issues
presented, the cause of the fire and its causal connection to the "severe "severe and horrific physical,
emotional, and psychological harm" alleged in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint are not so closely
connected and so readily apparent as to allow a alayman to diagnose the causal connection. To
allow the case to proceed in the absence of an expert witness to opine on the cause of the fire and
its ramifications upon the Plaintiffs' wellbeing would result in the fact-finder relying upon guess
or conjecture to make their findings. Id. Such reliance is impermissible in this Commonwealth.
Plaintiffs respond that Wang knew that the house contained evidence of negligent repairs
to the electrical system, and destroyed said evidence. See Plaintiffs?'
Plaintiffs' Reply in Opp. to. Defs. Mot.
Summ. J. at 17, attached as Exhibit I. Summ.1. 1. As aaresult of the alleged spoliation, claimed for the first
I
time in time time inPlaintiffs'
in Plaintiffs' Reply Plaintiffs' Reply in Opposition Reply in
in Opposition to Wang's
Oppositionto
to Wang's Motion
Wang's Motion for
Motion for Summary
for Summary Judgment,
Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs Judgment, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
arguethat argue argue that "there that "therewas "there was no
was no possibility
no possibility to retain possibility to
to retain an
retain an expert
an expert who
expert who would
who would have
would have seen
have seenthe
seen thefuse
the fuse box,
fuse box, in
box, inits
in its
its
original state, original state, original as state, as the
as the Philadelphia
the Philadelphia Fire
PhiladelphiaFire Department Fire Department officers
Department officers sawit..."
officers saw ·.."Id.
sawitit ...." Id, at 16.
at
Id. at 16.
16.
However, the However, However, therecord the record reveals
record revealsthat
reveals thatPlaintiffs
that Plaintiffs had
Plaintiffs had ample
had ample opportunity
ample opportunity to inspect opportunity to
to inspect thepremises.
inspectthe
the premises.
premises.
By letter By By letter dated letter dated July dated July 17,
July 17, 2023,
17, 2023, Wang
2023, Wang gave Plaintiffs'
Wang gave
gave Plaintiffs' counsel Plaintiffs' counsel the
counsel the
theopportunity to conduct opportunity to opportunity to conducta conduct aasite
site site
inspection of inspection inspection ofthe of theunaltered
the unaltered property
unaltered property before repairs.
propertybefore
before repairs. See Exh.
repairs. See
See Exh. A
Exh. A to
A to Defs.
to Defs. Reply
Defs. Reply Briefin
ReplyBrief
Brief in Support
in Support of
of
Support of
Mot. Summ. Mot. Mot. Summ. J., Summ. J., attached J., attached as
attached as Exhibit
as ExhibitJ.J.J. Indeed, Exhibit Jndeed, PIaffiffis'
Indeed, Plaintiffs' counsel Plaintiffs' counsel did
counsel did inspect
did inspect theproperty inspectthe
the on
on
property on property
August24, August August 24, 2023.
2023. See Defs. 2023. See
See Defs. Reply
Defs. Reply Brief
Reply Briefin
Brief in Support
in Supportof
Support ofMot.
of Mot. Summ. J.J.J. at
Summ.
Mot. Summ. at 8,
at 8, attached
8, attached as
attached asExhibit
as ExhibitK.
Exhibit KK.
Plaintiffs' choice Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs' choiceto choice tovisit
to visitthe
visit theproperty
the property five
property five(5)
five (5)months
(5) months after
months afterthe
after theMarch
the March2023
March 2023 fire,
2023 fire,without
fire, withoutan
without an
an
was of expert, was expert, oftheir their own
own making
making and
and cannot
cannot amount
amount to spoliationby
to spoliation
spoliation Wang.Plaintiffs by Wang.
Wang. Plaintiffs seek
Plaintiffs seekto
seek touse
to use
use
spoliation as spoliation as a a reason
reason they
they have
have failed
failed to
to produce
produce an
an expert
expert on
onthe
the issues ofbreach
issues of
of breach of
ofduty and
duty and
causation, rather causation, rather than than as aabasis
as a basisfor
basis for discovery sanctions.
discovery sanctions.
sanctions.
Notably, in Notably, Baliotis, the in Baliotis, the trial
trial court
court found
found that
that a
aperiod period of
ofapproximately two (2)
approximately two (2) months months
wasample was timewithin ampletime withinwhich whichtotoprovide
providenotice
noticeand
and an
anopportunity forinspection.
opportunityfor BaliotisV.v.
inspection.Baliotis
870F.Supp.
McNeil, 870 McNeil, F.Supp. 1285, 1285, 1293
1293 (
(M.D. Pa. 1990. M.D. Pa. 1994). The Baliotiscourt, TheBaliotis court,while
whilefinding
findingthat
thata
a
"spoliation inferencewas "spoliation inference"
inference" was appropriate given the appropriate given the facts facts of
ofthat
that case,
case, noted
noted that
thatrequiring a
requiring a
ownerto property owner property to maintain maintainthe
the scene
scene of
ofaafire indefinitely would fireindefinitely would be be "inefficient
"inefficient and
and wasteful,"
wasteful,"
and would and would create create a
apotential
potential for
forharm
harmto
to others
othersby
bymaintaining
maintaining a
a safety
safety hazard.
hazard.Id,
Id. atat 1292.
1292.
II. H. Use of Use ofReport ofFire
Report of FireAlarin
Alarm
Wangcontends Wang contendsininthe the instant
instantMotion
Motionthat
thatthe
theReport
Reportof
ofFire
FireAlarm
Alarmisisinadmissible
inadmissible
andtherefore hearsay and hearsay therefore cannot cannotbe
beused
usedtoto support
supportPlaintiffs'
Plaintiffs' claims.
claims.
In support of their claims, Plaintiffs point to the Report of Fire Alarm dated June 14,
2023, produced by the Philadelphia Fire Department's Fire Marshal's Office. See Exhibit E. The
one (1) page document prepared by Lieutenant Terrence Jackson identifies the cause of the fire one
Equipment," and identifies the origin of the fire as "basement." Id.
as "Electrical Wiring and Bquipment,"
Plaintiffs claim that the report is "an "an official, expert finding of the fire's factual cause and
origin," but do not otherwise argue that the document falls within an exception to the hearsay
rule. See Exhibit IIat 3.
The Report of Fire Alarm, as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the
matters asserted therein, constitutes hearsay. Pa. R. E. 801. The predicate supporting the
rejection of hearsay evidence is its assumed unreliability because the declarant from which the
statement originates is not before the trier of fact and therefore cannot be challenged as to the
accuracy of the information sought to be conveyed. Gunter v. Const. State Ser.
Serv. Co., 638 A.2d
235 (Pa.
233, 235 (Pa. Super. 1994).
Plaintiffs do not argue that the Report of Fire Alarm falls within an exception to the rule
against hearsay enumerated in Pa. R. E. 803. Regarding the public records exception to the rule
against hearsay, the brevity of the responses found in the Report of Fire Alarm renders them
ambiguous and, thus, unreliable as proofof here. See Jennings v. Com., of the critical facts at issue here,
Dept ofDriver Licensing, 715 A.2d 552, 555 of Dwnsp., Bureau of Dep't ofTransp., 555 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
Ct, 1998).
Without the testimony of the investigating firefighter to provide context for the report, it cannot
the cause
be trusted that the Report of Fire Alarm alone provides reliable information as to both the
fie. Id. As such, the Report of Fire Alarm does not fall within the official and the origin of the fire.
records exception to the hearsay rule, and as such constitutes inadmissible hearsay evidence that
may not be presented to the fact-finder on the issues of breach of duty and causation.
7
7
.\
88
III. III. Hearsay Testimony Hearsay Testimony of
ofJulio
Julio Joya
Joya
Wang contends in the instant Motion that the testimony of Plaintiff Joya as to what a Wang contends Wang contends in
inthe
the instant
instant Motion
Motion that
that the
thetestimony
testimony of
ofPlaintiff
PlaintiffJoya
Joya as
as to
to what
what a
a
firefighter told him regarding the cause and origin of the fire is inadmissible hearsay, and thus firefightertold firefighter toldhim
himregarding
regardingthe
the cause
cause and
andorigin
originof
ofthe
thefire
fire isisinadmissible
inadmissible hearsay,
hearsay, and
andthus
thus
i cannot be admitted in support of Plaintiffs' claims sounding in negligence. Plaintiffs do not cannotbe cannot beadmitted
admittedin
insupport
supportof
ofPlaintiffs'
Plaintiffs' claims
claims sounding
soundingininnegligence.
negligence. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs do
do not
not
arguethat argue thatsuch
suchtestimony
testimonyfalls
fallswithin
withinan exceptiontotothe anexception therule
ruleagainst
againsthearsay.
hearsay.
I
I An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein, Anout-of-court An out-of-courtstatement
statementoffered
offeredtotoprove
provethe
thetruth
truthof
ofthe
thematters
mattersasserted
assertedtherein,
therein,
I
constituteshearsay. constitutes hearsay.Pa.
Pa.R.
R.E.E.801.
801.Such
Suchevidence
evidenceisisinadmissible
inadmissibleunless
unlessititfalls
fallswithin
withinan
an
i
i exceptiontotothe
exception therule
ruleagainst
againsthearsay.
hearsay.Pa.
Pa.R.R.E.E.802,
802.
II 1 I I I The record shows that on the evening of the fire, an unidentified Philadelphia Fire Therecord The recordshows
showsthat
thaton
onthe
theevening
eveningofthe
of thefire, anunidentified fire,an unidentifiedPhiladelphia.Fire Philadelphia Fire
I I I
I firefighterinformed Departmentfirefighter Department informedJoya Joyathat "thecause
that"the
''the causeof
ofthe
thefire
firewas
waselectricity."
electricity."See ExhibitDDatat SeeExhibit
I 1 85:3-16.
I I 85:3-16.
I i Suchtestimony Such constitutesout-of-court testimonyconstitutes out-of-courtstatements statementsoffered
offeredtotoprove truthofofthe thetruth
provethe the
I mattersasserted matters therein-that assertedtherein
therein—--that
thatis,is,totoprove
proveWang's breachofofduty Wang'sbreach dutyand andcausation
causationregarding
regardingthe
the
March2023, March firethat
2023,fire thatforced
forcedPlaintiffs
Plaintiffsout theirhomes.
outofoftheir homes.As such,the Assuch, thestatements
statementsare
are
inadmissibleand inadmissible andmay
maynot
notbebepresented
presentedtotothe
thefact-finder
fact-findertotoaid
aidtheir fact.finding.
theirfactfnding.
factfinding.
IV. IV. RemainingEvidence Remaining EvidenceofofRecord Record
InInaddition
additiontotothe aforementionedevidence, theaforementioned evidence,Plaintiffs Plaintiffshave
haveadduced
adducedthe
thefollowing
following
evidenceofof evidence recordininsupport record supportofof theirnegligence them negligenceand
andNIED
NIEDclaims:
claims:(i)(i)text
textmessages
messagespurportedly
purportedly
sent sent betweenWang
between Wangand
andPlaintiffs;
Plaintiffs;(ii)(ii)Plaintiff Plaintiff ShelleyRojas
Shelley RojasSupplemental Supplemental Answertoto
Answer
Defendant Defendant Wang's Inten· ogatoriesofof Wang'sInterrogatories
Interrogatories September14,14,2023;
September 2023; (i)
(ii) (iii) Defendant
Defendant Wang'sResponse Wang's Response
toto
Plaintiffs'Interrogatories; Plaintiffs' Interrogatories;and, and, (iv)
(iv) Plaintiff
Plaintiff Elizeth
Eliazet Elizeth Juarez'sSupplemental Juarez's Supplemental Answers Answers to to
Defendant Defendant Wang's
Wang's Interrogatories.
Interrogatories.
The issues The issues of
ofbreach
breach of
ofduty
duty and
and causation,
causation, in
in this
this case
case concerning
concerning an
an electrical
electrical fire
fire and
and
subsequent physical, subsequent physical, emotional, emotional, and
and psychological
psychological injuries, not such injuries, isis not such where where the
the matter
matter under
under
investigation isis so investigation so supple, and the simple, and the lack ofskill lack of skill or
or want ofcare
want of so obvious,
care so obvious, as
as to
to be
be within the
within the
range of range the ordinary of the experience and ordinary experience and comprehension comprehension of
ofeven
even nonprofessional
nonprofessional persons. See persons. See
698 A.2d
Welsh, 698 Welsh, at 586 A.2d at 586 n. 11. As
n, 11. such, the
As such, the remaining
remaining evidence
evidence of
ofrecord
record isis insufficient
insufficient to
to allow
allow
the fact-finder the fact-finder to to establish
establish a
a breach
breach of
ofduty
duty and
and causation
causation without
without the
the production
production of
ofan
an expert
expert
witness. If witness. If the the case
case is
is allowed
allowed to
to proceed
proceed to
to trial,
trial, this would result
this would result in the fact-finder in the reaching its fact-finder reaching its
verdict merely verdict merely on on the
the basis
basis of
of guess
guess or
or conjecture. See Marrazzo, conjecture. See Marrazzo, 223 223 A.2d at 21.
A.2d at 21.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
For the For the foregoing
foregoing reasons,
reasons, Defendant
Defendant Wang's
Wang's Motion
Motion for
for Summary
Summary Judgment
Judgment is
is granted,
granted,
whereby the Amended Complaint is is dismissed.
.-. -.-. -- . BY.THE
) BY- COURT:
THE COURT:
i #4 �'---�
J. J. J.
I