United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
M. MUNLEY, United States District Court Judge
the court for disposition is Plaintiff Matthew Hannon's
(hereinafter “plaintiff”) motion for
reconsideration. (Doc. 83). Plaintiff's motion challenges
the court's January 17, 2017 order granting Defendant
Lowe's Home Center, Inc.'s (hereinafter
“Lowe's”) motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
80). For the following reasons, we will deny plaintiff's
matter arises out of a June 8, 2012 personal injury incident
at Lowe's Home Center Store in Bartonsville,
Pennsylvania. At that time, Lowe's subcontracted with
Third-Party Defendant We Do That Construction and its owner,
Todd Romanczuk (collectively “WTDC”), to perform
home construction and installation of decking and siding.
(Doc. 76, Def. Lowe's Statement of Uncontested Facts
(hereinafter “SOF”) ¶¶ 2, 5,
Lowe's also generally contracted with Third-Party
Defendant Kitchen & Flooring Contractor, Inc. and its
owner, Jerome Saylor (collectively “Kitchen &
Flooring”), to perform interior installation and
remodeling work. (SOF ¶¶ 16, 20). Kitchen &
Flooring never subcontracted work to WDTC. (SOF ¶ 15).
contacted WDTC and Kitchen & Flooring to build a display
house for its store. Lowe's did not pay Kitchen &
Flooring's owner, Defendant Saylor, for work on the
display. (SOF ¶ 27). Similarly, WDTC agreed to work on
the display voluntarily with the goal of obtaining future
sales from Lowe's. (SOF ¶ 41). Plaintiff Matthew
Hannon, an employee of WDTC, worked on the display house.
(SOF ¶¶ 1, 51, 65). While lifting the roof of the
display house, plaintiff broke his wrist when the roof fell
on his arm. (SOF ¶¶ 65, 68). No Lowe's
employees were present at the time of plaintiff's injury.
(SOF ¶ 66).
November 14, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint against
Lowe's advancing one claim of negligence for failing to
supervise, instruct, or otherwise monitor construction of the
display house. (Doc. 1, Compl.). On January 16, 2015,
Lowe's filed a third-party negligence complaint against
WDTC and Kitchen & Flooring. (Doc. 9, Third-Party
October 12, 2016, Lowe's filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. 63). We granted the motion on January 17,
2017. (Doc. 80). On January 31, 2017, plaintiff filed the
instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 83). The parties
have briefed their respective positions and the matter is
ripe for disposition.
court has jurisdiction pursuant to the diversity statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania.
(Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 1). Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
Lowe's “is incorporated under the laws of a state
or jurisdiction other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
” with its principal place of business in North
Carolina. (Doc. 9, Third-Party Compl. ¶ 1). Third-Party
Defendants WDTC and Kitchen & Flooring are citizens of
Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶¶ 2-5). Because
complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, the court has
jurisdiction over the case. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332 (“[D]istrict courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive
of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of
different States[.]”). As a federal court sitting in
diversity, the substantive law of Pennsylvania shall apply to
the instant case. Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d
154, 158 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Erie R.R. v.
Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938)).
seeks reconsideration of the court's January 17, 2017
order granting Lowe's motion for summary judgment.
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 799 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985);
Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). The movant
must demonstrate one of three grounds for such a motion to be
granted: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence not previously available; or
(3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent
manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d
at 677. A motion for reconsideration is not a proper vehicle
merely to attempt to convince the court to rethink a decision
it has already made. Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of
Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
motion for reconsideration is not based on an intervening
change in controlling law or new evidence not previously
available. Rather, he infers that the court committed a
manifest error of law or must intervene to prevent manifest
injustice. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the display
house presented a “special danger, ” which the
court did not consider when granting Lowe's motion for
summary judgment. Lowe's argues that plaintiff has not
established a clear error of law or manifest injustice
warranting reconsideration. After a careful review, we agree
previously stated, plaintiff filed a single-count negligence
complaint against Lowe's asserting that Lowe's
negligently failed to supervise, instruct, or otherwise
monitor construction of the display house. In Pennsylvania, a
cause of action in negligence requires a plaintiff to
establish four elements: (1) the defendant had a duty to
conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) the defendant
breached that duty; (3) such breach caused the injury in
question; and (4) the plaintiff incurred actual loss or
damage. Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 687, 692
(Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). In its motion for summary
judgment, Lowe's challenged the existence of a duty,
which “consists of one party's obligation to
conform to a particular standard of care for the protection
of another.” R.W. v. Manzek, 888 A.2d 740, 746
(Pa. 2005) ...