Appeal from the Order Entered August 21, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 06-16868
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J. [*]
Appellant, Marcia Brodsky, appeals from the order granting Appellee, Costco Wholesale Corporation's, motion for summary judgment entered by the Honorable Joseph A. Smyth, Jr., Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. After careful review, we affirm.
Brodsky suffered injuries when her cane became entangled in the spokes of an unattended wheelchair in the aisle of a Costco Warehouse retail store. A little more than a year later, in July 2006, Brodsky filed suit against Costco over the incident. After four years of discovery, Costco moved for summary judgment in December 2010. As noted above, the trial court granted Costco's motion on August 21, 2012, and this timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Brodsky raises the following question for our review:
1. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abused its discretion in granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment by finding that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to Appellee's actual or constructive notice of what was alleged to have been a dangerous condition of its premises that caused Appellant to fall and suffer serious and permanent bodily injuries?
Appellant's Brief, at 4.
Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is as follows:
In evaluating the trial court's decision to enter summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the summary judgment rule. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2. The rule states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary judgment may be entered.... [W]e will view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. PECO, 54 A.3d 921, 925 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). "As our inquiry involves solely questions of law, our review is de novo." Catlin v. Hamburg, 56 A.3d 914, 920 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
With the above standard in mind, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, briefs, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed the thorough opinion drafted by Judge Smyth, which addressed the issues Brodsky raised in her 1925(b) statement. We conclude that Judge Smyth's well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issue Brodsky raises on appeal. Accordingly, we incorporate Judge Smyth's ...