Legal Research and Writing II - Memo Revision & Editing Assignment (40 points):

You have been a litigation paralegal with Dewey, Cheatum & Howe for several months and have successfully drafted numerous memoranda for your supervising attorney. Several days ago you were asked to research law in Pennsylvania pertaining to landlord liability for injuries sustained by a tenant in a common area of rented premises. Unfortunately, you were very busy assisting the senior partner at trial and you asked a paralegal intern to help with the project. The intern prepared the following memo. After reviewing the work you realize that it must be edited and cite checked before it can be turned in.

Directions:

Using track changes in Word, please rewrite the memo so that it is acceptable and conforms to proper interoffice memoranda criteria. You will also need to check the citations to make sure they refer to the correct cases and put them in Bluebook format. Note that this assignment discusses Pennsylvania law. It is not unusual to occasionally have to research out-of-state law, so this is a good opportunity to use your Bluebook and get familiar with the Pennsylvania section.

This assignment will take you awhile, so I'm giving you two weeks to complete it. The revised memo with changes tracked (so I can see what you changed) should be dropboxed in the Assignments folder by the due date.

The draft memo from the intern begins on the next page.

TO: Harvey Howe, Esquire

FROM: Perfect Paralegal

DATE:November 23, 2020

RE: Louise DePugh v. Centerville Housing Authority

The within action involves and pertains to a claim for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, Louise DePugh, on Wednesday, March 13, 2018 at approximately 9:15 a.m. in the sixth floor hallway of the plaintiff's apartment building known as the Southgate Arms which is a multiple tenant dwelling owned, possessed, maintained, controlled and operated by defendant, Centerville Housing Authority, which sounds like a governmental body, but is really a privately held and maintained and controlled and operated corporation licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff's fall and subsequent and resulting serious and devastating injuries occurred when the said Plaintiff, on the above-mentioned date, and at the time aforementioned, stepped out of the building elevator into the sixth floor hallway and was caused to fall by the fact that the said area hallway had just been painted. Despite the aforementioned slippery and dangerous condition, no warning signs or barricades were in place.

Furthermore, the hallway lighting was totally and completely inadequate to reveal the dangerous condition of the freshly painted floor.

In falling, the plaintiff struck her back and head on the elevator frame and floor, and she continues to suffer, through to the present time, from a permanent and chronic pain syndrome and resultant personality disorder all resulting from the injuries she sustained at the time of this accident. This condition has caused Plaintiff to suffer a permanent loss of her mobility, agility and mental health, thus interfering with her work, home life and her enjoyment of life's pleasures.

An examination of the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania clearly reveals that, were a landlord retains control of part of a leased premises, which is necessary to the safe use of the leased portion of the aforesaid premises, he will be liable to the lessee and to all others who lawfully come upon the said leased premises, for physical harm caused by the dangerous condition. The aforesaid is true if the landlord, by the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered the condition and the risk involved and made the premises safe. Smith v. M.P.W. Realty Co., 225 A.2d 227, 422 Pa. 536 (1967); Pierce v.Philadelphia Housing Authority, 337 Pa. Supp. 425, 486 A. 2d 1004 (1985).

It also seems important to note that the Pennsylvania legislature has a statute on the staute books that seems to speak to this subject in statute 68 Pa.C.S.A. 250.502A which says "The retention of control of the stairways, passages, roadways and other common facilities of a tenement building or multiple dwelling premises places upon the landlord or other possessor, the duty of reasonable care for safety in use."

In conclusion the landlord should pay. He probably doesn't care about his tenants and bet there have been many other similar, if not identical, injuries to other tenants, guests,visitors and licensee-type people who come upon or have business on the said premises. However, we really do need to take into consideration whether the Plaintiff was contributory negligent in this situation because the painting of the hallways and floors in the apartment building had been going on for several days and there were signs posted in the lobby about the painting. Plaintiff' knowledge of a potentially dangerous condition has been the subject of many previous court cases including Morris v. Atlantic & PacificTea Co., 121 A.2d 135 (Pa. 1956) (fact that a controverted terrain is dangerous, or potentially so, does not of itself prove that a person who attempts to cross it is contributorily negligent); Kanpp v. City of Bradford, 247 A.2d 575 (Pa. 1968) (One who sees a defect and continues on is contributorily negligent); and Kresovich v. Fitzsimmons, 246 A.2d 585 (Pa. 1970) (Plaintiff could be contributorily negligent for failure to avoid a defective sidewalk). Somebody better check out what the plaintiff knew and what she actually saw when she got off the elevator that day.