Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 419 Pa. 229, 213 A.2d 608 (1965). In Martino, the plaintiff had slipped on a grape on the floor of the defendant’s store. As in the present case, the plaintiff presented testimony that produce frequently fell to the floor. Grapes were an especially pervasive problem, because the scale used to weigh the grapes was located across the aisle from the grape counter. Accordingly, grapes fell to the floor as customers carried them to the scale. The testimony also revealed that, as in the present case, an employee was required to keep the produce area, including the floor, clear of debris. In affirming the non-suit entered in favor of the defendant, the Supreme Court held the following: So far as this record discloses, the offending grape A.2d 691 (1989) (<HOLDING>). For the above reasons, we conclude that the
holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that because the language of the easement was ambiguous the parties intentions were not clear and summary judgment was improperly granted recognizing that even where a party has the burden of proof at trial that party need not produce proof supporting his claim in response to a motion for summary judgment unless the movant has first presented evidence that would negate an element of the nonmovants claim or indicates that the nonmovant will be unable to meet his burden at trial it is never enough simply to state that the nonmoving party cannot meet its burden at trial holding that summary judgment was improperly granted where record did not disclose that the plaintiff would be unable to produce supporting evidence at trial holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed