established by the fact that produce frequently fell to the floor when employees filled the produce cases. Furthermore, a lack of reasonable care is not established merely because the employee working in the produce department was on a break when appellant fell. These facts do not lead to a reasonable inference that appellee or its agents were negligent and that negligence caused the grape to be on the floor. A jury would not properly be able to reach a conclusion of negligence on these facts as such a conclusion would be based on guess or conjecture. If other evidence existed upon which appellant could sustain this theory, that evidence should have been disclosed in opposition to appellee’s motion for summary judgment. See Roland, supra, 355 Pa.Super. at 500-02, 513 A.2d at 1033-34 (<HOLDING>); Brecher v. Cutler, 396 Pa.Super. 211, 578
holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding if immunity is raised as a basis in the motion for summary adjudication a substantial right is affected and the denial is immediately appealable holding alvarez and garza were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their affirmative defense of limitations when they did not negate the discovery rule in their summary judgment motions holding that if undisclosed evidence might have affected the disposition of the summary judgment motion the plaintiffs chose not to disclose the basis of their claim and they did so at their own risk holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed