In a significant ruling issued January 21, 2026, the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County denied an attempt by Lackawanna County to reopen discovery in a long-pending personal injury case involving a dangerous roadway condition outside the County Government Center in Scranton.
The Order reinforces an important principle: defendants cannot ignore deadlines for years and then try to restart the process once a case is certified for trial.
Here’s what happened and why it matters.
The Underlying Injury
The case stems from an October 24, 2019 fall in which the plaintiff allegedly tripped on a junction box located in the roadway directly in front of the Lackawanna County Government Center at 123 Wyoming Avenue in Scranton.
The lawsuit was filed more than four years ago. Discovery deadlines were set. Extended. Completed.
The case was certified as ready for trial.
Then after discovery had been closed for over 17 months; the County filed a “Motion for Limited Discovery Pre-Trial in Nature of Request for Admissions.”
In plain English: They wanted more discovery after the case was already heading to trial.
The County’s Argument
Lackawanna County previously sought summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care. But testimony in the case complicated that position.
According to deposition testimony cited by the Court, a County deputy sheriff stated that if he observed a junction box “without the lid on top” or in disrepair, he would contact the City of Scranton to have it fixed and would “cone it off for safety” in the meantime.
That testimony became legally significant.
Under Pennsylvania law, specifically Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323; when someone voluntarily undertakes to render services necessary for the protection of others, they assume a duty to exercise reasonable care in performing that undertaking.
Pennsylvania courts have recognized this principle for decades. If you take responsibility for safety, you must handle it responsibly.
Because of this evidence, the Court previously denied the County’s motion for summary judgment, finding there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the County voluntarily assumed responsibility for the junction box.
The Late Discovery Attempt
After losing summary judgment and after the case was certified for trial, the County attempted to reopen discovery, claiming it needed additional admissions from the plaintiff regarding what it characterized as a “judicially created factual issue.”
The Court did not agree.
In the January 21, 2026 Order, the Court made clear:
-
The factual dispute was not created by the Court.
-
It arose from the County’s own summary judgment record and sworn testimony.
-
The County failed to explain why it did not pursue this discovery during the original 33-month discovery period.
-
Reopening discovery at this stage would be improper and prejudicial.
The motion was denied.
Why This Ruling Matters
This decision highlights several important legal principles in Pennsylvania personal injury litigation:
1. Deadlines Matter
Courts enforce discovery deadlines. Litigation is not a moving target that can be reopened whenever a party regrets its prior strategy.
2. Voluntary Undertakings Create Duty
If a governmental entity or property owner voluntarily assumes responsibility for addressing a hazardous condition, it may assume a legal duty to do so with reasonable care.
3. Summary Judgment Is Not a “Do Over”
When a party loses summary judgment based on the evidence it submitted, it cannot later claim the issue was “judicially created” and attempt to fix the record after the fact.
Accountability in Government Premises Cases
Trip-and-fall cases involving government entities are often aggressively defended. Immunity defenses are common. Motions for summary judgment are routine.
But Pennsylvania law recognizes that when a public entity undertakes actions to protect public safety, even informally, those actions may create legal responsibilities.
This Order reinforces that public entities, like private property owners, must follow through when they assume responsibility for hazardous conditions.
Injured in Scranton or Lackawanna County?
If you were injured because of a dangerous condition on public or private property, the details matter. Who owned it? Who maintained it? Who undertook responsibility for it?
These cases often turn on careful investigation and a deep understanding of Pennsylvania negligence law.
Pisanchyn Law Firm has decades of experience handling complex premises liability and municipal negligence cases throughout Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Northeastern Pennsylvania.
If you have questions about a fall or serious injury, contact our office for a free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you sue Lackawanna County for a trip and fall injury?
Yes — but it’s complicated.
Government entities in Pennsylvania have certain immunity protections. However, there are exceptions. If a dangerous condition exists on government property — such as a hazardous roadway defect — and the entity knew or should have known about it, liability may apply.
Cases involving municipalities or counties require strict compliance with notice rules and deadlines. Missing them can destroy an otherwise valid claim.
What is a “voluntary undertaking” in a personal injury case?
A voluntary undertaking happens when a person or entity chooses to take responsibility for addressing a dangerous condition.
Under Pennsylvania law, if someone undertakes to protect others from harm — even informally — they may assume a legal duty to act with reasonable care.
In this case, testimony suggested that County personnel would report and temporarily secure a damaged junction box. That testimony created a factual issue about whether the County assumed responsibility for safety.
And once you assume responsibility, you can’t do it halfway.
Why did the Court deny Lackawanna County’s motion for additional discovery?
The Court found that:
-
Discovery had already been closed for more than a year.
-
The case had been certified ready for trial.
-
The factual dispute arose from the County’s own evidence.
-
The County did not explain why it failed to request the discovery earlier.
Courts expect parties to follow deadlines. Litigation is not a reset button you press after a strategic misstep.
What is summary judgment in a Pennsylvania injury case?
Summary judgment is when a defendant asks the Court to dismiss a case before trial, arguing that there are no factual disputes.
If genuine issues of material fact exist — meaning a jury needs to weigh evidence — summary judgment is denied.
That’s exactly what happened here.
Are trip and fall cases against government entities harder to win?
Yes. They are aggressively defended and involve immunity laws that don’t apply in typical private property cases.
You need to establish:
-
A dangerous condition existed
-
The government entity had actual or constructive notice
-
The condition caused your injuries
-
An exception to immunity applies
These cases require careful legal analysis and aggressive discovery.
How long do you have to file a trip and fall claim in Pennsylvania?
Generally, the statute of limitations for personal injury in Pennsylvania is two years from the date of injury.
However, when a government entity is involved, additional notice requirements and shorter internal deadlines may apply.
Waiting is risky.
What should I do if I fall on government property in Scranton?
-
Report the incident immediately.
-
Take photos of the hazard.
-
Get medical treatment.
-
Preserve shoes and clothing.
-
Speak with a personal injury attorney before giving statements.
Government cases move fast once filed — and defenses start immediately.
