When someone is seriously injured due to unsafe public property or neglected infrastructure, one of the biggest hurdles in Pennsylvania personal injury law is proving responsibility; especially when city departments, utility companies, or contractors are involved.

A recent decision in Carole Mason v. City of Scranton, et al. underscores how these complex cases can move forward even when powerful defendants try to shut them down early.

The Case Background

In this Lackawanna County case, the plaintiff, represented by Pisanchyn Law Firm, was injured due to a broken electrical junction box lid located on a city street in downtown Scranton. The lawsuit named several defendants; including the City of Scranton, Lackawanna County, PPL Electric Utilities, and others; alleging negligence in the inspection, maintenance, and safety of the area where the injury occurred.

Each defendant filed motions asking the court to dismiss the claims through summary judgment, arguing that no factual dispute existed and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. But the court didn’t agree.

The Court’s Decision: Three Denials in One Day

On October 31, 2025, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied all summary judgment motions, from the City of Scranton, Lackawanna County, and PPL Electric Utilities.

1. City of Scranton – Motion Denied

The court found that factual questions still exist about:

  • How long the defect existed.
  • Whether the hazard was obvious.
  • Who was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the junction box.

Order – 1 issued on 10/31/2025

Because reasonable minds could differ on these issues, the City’s claim for dismissal was rejected. The case will now proceed to trial, allowing a jury to decide whether the City failed to properly maintain a safe public walkway.

2. Lackawanna County – Motion Denied

Evidence showed that Lackawanna County’s maintenance department may have been involved in work near the accident site and potentially moved or altered the junction box before the incident occurred.

Order – 2 issued on 10/31/2025

That raises a key question: did the County take on responsibility for maintaining the area once it modified it? The court said this dispute must go before a jury.

3. PPL Electric Utilities – Motion Denied

The court also denied PPL’s motion because the record did not prove that PPL was free from liability.

Order – 3 issued on 10/31/2025

The judge cited procedural rules allowing dismissal of unsupported motions and reaffirmed that summary judgment is appropriate only when the right to it is “clear and free from doubt.”

Why These Denials Matter

These rulings are significant not just for this case, but for injury victims across Pennsylvania who face similar uphill battles. The decisions reinforce several key legal principles:
Defendants must clearly prove they had no responsibility, simply denying ownership or control is not enough.

Municipalities and utilities can be held accountable when unsafe infrastructure leads to harm.

Summary judgment is a narrow remedy, if there are any factual disputes; injured plaintiffs have the right to present their case to a jury.

Judge Nealon cited multiple Pennsylvania appellate decisions confirming that summary judgment should only be granted when no genuine issue of material fact exists, emphasizing the court’s duty to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the injured party.

Pisanchyn Law Firm’s Role

The Pisanchyn Law Firm successfully opposed three defense motions, ensuring that the injured plaintiff’s claims remain active against each defendant.

By demonstrating inconsistencies in testimony, maintenance records, and responsibilities among the city, county, and utility company, the firm secured an opportunity for their client to have her case heard in full.

This outcome highlights the firm’s experience in handling complex multi-defendant premises liability and municipal negligence cases, where attention to detail and aggressive advocacy make all the difference.

What This Means for Pennsylvania Injury Victims

If you’ve been injured due to unsafe public property, defective infrastructure, or negligent maintenance, this case shows that you have options; even when the responsible parties are large organizations or government entities.

Don’t assume you can’t recover just because a city or utility company claims “immunity.” The law protects your right to pursue compensation when negligence leads to harm.

Contact Pisanchyn Law Firm

At the Pisanchyn Law Firm, we fight for individuals and families across Pennsylvania who have been injured through no fault of their own. Our team has the experience and resources to handle cases involving:

  • Dangerous sidewalks or public property.
  • Negligent maintenance by cities or contractors.
  • Utility-related injuries or electrical hazards.
  • Complex multi-party liability claims.

Contact us today for a free case consultation!