Pennsylvania Premises Liability Funding

Two years from the date of injury for a negligence/premises-liability claim (42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524).

Pennsylvania applies modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar — a plaintiff found 51% or more responsible recovers nothing (42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102). Pennsylvania retains the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser categories and follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts for possessor liability, including § 344, which addresses a business's duty to protect invitees from the accidental, negligent, or intentional harmful acts of third persons — the leading negligent-security theory in the state. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court adopted this framework in Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742 (1984), a case involving an assault in an apartment complex parking area, holding that a landlord's duty to provide security measures depends on whether the landlord knew or had reason to know of a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons that would endanger the safety of a visitor — a standard generally established through evidence of prior similar crimes or an otherwise-known pattern of danger on the property, rather than through the mere fact that crime occurs in the surrounding area.

No statutory cap on damages in an ordinary premises-liability case; the Pennsylvania Constitution independently prohibits caps on damages for personal injury or death (Pa. Const. art. III, § 18).

Traditional pre-judgment interest on unliquidated tort damages is not awarded, but "delay damages" under Pa. R. Civ. P. 238 function similarly, adding to a verdict based on the period the case was pending, subject to specific tolling rules.

Proper in the county where the cause of action arose or where the defendant regularly conducts business (Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006).

Pennsylvania has no dedicated consumer litigation funding statute. No statutory cap identified.

What does Feld v. Merriam require to establish a landlord's duty to provide security?

Feld adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 standard, requiring proof the landlord knew or had reason to know of a likelihood that third-party criminal conduct would endanger visitors — not merely that crime occurs in the surrounding neighborhood.

This makes documentation specific to the property — prior police calls, incident reports, complaints about broken locks or inadequate lighting in the exact area where the harm occurred — more valuable than general area crime statistics when building a Pennsylvania negligent-security claim.

How does the 51% bar affect a Pennsylvania negligent security claim?

Because a plaintiff found 51% or more responsible recovers nothing, a defendant's argument that the plaintiff ignored a warning or entered a restricted, poorly secured area functions as a potential complete bar rather than a simple damages reduction.

Evaluating the realistic comparative-fault exposure alongside the strength of the § 344 foreseeability evidence is therefore a combined, not separate, underwriting question in a contested Pennsylvania claim.

Does it matter whether the defendant is the property owner or a hired security company?

Yes. A Pennsylvania negligent-security claim can name the property owner, the management company, and any independently contracted security firm, and the specific contractual allocation of security responsibility among them often shapes who bears primary liability.

Discovery frequently focuses on the security contract itself — what duties were delegated to the contractor, what the property owner retained control over, and whether staffing levels matched what was promised.