A Philadelphia jury returned a defense verdict in a premises-liability trip-and-fall lawsuit arising from an August 21, 2023, incident, finding that the defendant apartment complex was not negligent.
GMR Partner Joe Petka represented the defendant and argued that the plaintiff’s accident resulted from a natural and readily foreseeable condition of a wooded walking trail, not a dangerous condition for which the apartment complex could be held liable.
The jury consisted of nine women and three men and rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant was responsible for injuries she sustained after tripping over a raised tree root along a pedestrian path near the apartment complex.
The plaintiff was walking along a well-worn pedestrian pathway used by residents for ingress and egress when she encountered a raised tree root that was concealed by leaves. She contended that the condition presented a dangerous and foreseeable risk and that the defendant failed to remediate or warn about it.
The fall resulted in a significant left tibial plateau fracture and additional knee injuries. Her treatment included emergency medical care, orthopedic treatment, extensive physical therapy, and open reduction and internal fixation surgery in September 2023.
The plaintiff also underwent a second surgery in March 2025 to remove orthopedic hardware that had become painful. At trial, she claimed that she continued to experience pain, weakness, instability, and limitations with walking, standing, using stairs, and performing work-related activities. She further claimed permanent impairment, post-traumatic arthritis, synovitis, and other continuing medical problems.
Petka argued that tree roots are a natural, common, and foreseeable condition associated with wooded walking trails and, under the circumstances, did not constitute a dangerous condition for which the defendant could be held liable. He further argued that a reasonable person walking on a dirt trail through a wooded area would understand that the surface would not be perfectly level and would exercise appropriate caution accordingly.
The jury ultimately agreed with the defense’s position and found that the defendant was not negligent, resulting in a complete defense verdict.
