- Home
-
Attorneys
75+ Attorneys in 7 Offices
Cipriani & Werner has over 75 attorneys in 7 cities with expertise in commercial litigation, civil litigation, workers’ compensation, and more.
Pittsburgh
Harrisburg
Philadelphia
Scranton
Marlton
Wheeling
Charleston
-
Practice Areas
Our Practice Areas
Cipriani & Werner has built expertise in commercial litigation, civil litigation, and workers’ compensation.
-
Offices
Our Offices
Cipriani & Werner has offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and West Virginia.
650 Washington Road Suite 700Pittsburgh, PA 15228Phone: (412) 563-25001011 Mumma Road Suite 201Lemoyne, PA 17043-1145Phone: (717) 975-9600450 Sentry Parkway Suite 200Blue Bell, PA 19422Phone: (610) 567-0700409 Lackawanna Ave Suite 402Scranton, PA 18503-2059Phone: (570) 347-0600155 Gaither Drive Suite BMt. Laurel, NJ 08054Phone: (856) 761-38001144 Market Street Suite 300Wheeling, WV 26003Phone: (304) 232-3600500 Virginia St. East Suite 750Charleston, WV 25301Phone: (304) 341-0500 -
C&W Journal
C&W Journal
Cipriani & Werner provides legal insight for business professionals.
May 2012 Edition
Cipriani & Werner Obtains Dismissal of Personal Injury Claim Against Convenience Store
Post Date
02/16/12
Attorney Adam L. Seiferth, for Cipriani & Werner, PC, successfully defended a convenience mart against a claim that plaintiff was injured due to defective exterior steps. Plaintiff parked her vehicle along the side of the store, walked up two steps and along the front of the premises to the entrance. As plaintiff was about to enter the store, another woman was exiting. Plaintiff attempted to hold the door open for the woman, when without looking down, plaintiff stepped backwards and fell, severely breaking her ankle. Plaintiff claimed that the steps created a dangerous and hazardous condition.
Relying on the admissions of plaintiff obtained during her deposition, Attorney Seiferth moved for summary judgment on the basis that the steps presented an obvious condition and that it was the duty of the plaintiff to look where she was walking and to see that which was obvious. The Court of Common Pleas, noting that whether a danger is obvious is typically a question of fact for the jury to decide, agreed that the configuration of the steps of the convenience mart “would have been obvious to anyone exercising normal perception, intelligence, and judgment.” The court also placed weight on the fact that “Plaintiff admitted during her deposition she was not looking down when stepping backward.”
The court’s opinion, which reinforces the valuable rule that there is no duty to protect invitees from obvious conditions, can be reviewed here.
