The Pennsylvania Superior
Court recently upheld a
trial court’s grant of
summary judgment dismissing
all negligence claims
brought by a plaintiff
against a property owner and
snow maintenance contractor
regarding a slip and fall,
in the case of
Collins v. Philadelphia
Suburban Development,
2018 Pa. Super LEXIS 72
(Jan. 31, 2018).
In Collins, plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell
on a sidewalk and sustained
severe injuries as a result
of the defendants’ purported
failure to reasonably
service the premises,
clearing it of ice and snow.
The Superior Court
predominantly relied upon
the case of Biernacki v.
Presque Isle Condominiums
Unit Owners Association,
828 A.2d 114 (Pa. Super.
2003),[1]
in upholding the trial
court’s grant of summary
judgment on behalf of the
defendants pursuant to the
hills and ridges doctrine.
Namely, “an owner or
occupier of land [is
protected from liability]
for generally slippery
conditions resulting from
ice and snow where the owner
has not permitted the ice
and snow to unreasonably
accumulate in ridges or
elevations.” Although
plaintiff attempted to
assert that the hills and
ridges doctrine should not
have applied to bar
plaintiff’s negligence
claims because the property
owner did not properly
pre-treat the subject
premises with de-icing
materials and there were
multiple issues of material
fact, the Superior Court
disagreed. Most notably,
regarding the issue of when
a property owner must take
action as to servicing a
snowy and/or icy condition,
the Superior Court noted
“the only duty upon the
property owner or tenant is
to act within a reasonable
time after notice to remove
the snow and ice when it is
in a dangerous condition.”
Given that discovery in the
case revealed plaintiff’s
alleged fall occurred during
an ongoing blizzard, there
was no way to assess whether
a reasonable or unreasonable
amount of time had passed to
address the snow and ice.
Thus, the Superior Court’s
holding in Collins
embodies the fact that no
duty to remove a dangerous
condition within a
reasonable time can exist
when the winter storm is
still ongoing. Additionally,
failure to pre-treat a
sidewalk before said storm
is not a breach of an
affirmative legal duty.
While somewhat
difficult to contemplate
concerns regarding snow and
ice during these now balmy
days of summer (and water
ice!), it is always a good
idea for property owners,
snow maintenance contractors
and risk assessment
specialists to ensure they
have a firm understanding of
what’s “reasonably” required
of them pursuant to
Pennsylvania law. From a
defense perspective, as
further buttressed by the
above-analyzed holding,
the foremost thing to keep in mind with the hills and ridges doctrine
is to attempt to establish
(through deposition or
detailed discovery requests)
there were generally
slippery conditions
prevailing throughout the
area in question. Hence, the
closer in time one can
establish there had been
some precipitation in
relation to the time of an
alleged fall, the better
(and even better if one can
establish the storm was
ongoing at the time of
the fall). Namely, “the
purpose of the [hills and
ridges] doctrine is to
protect owners or occupiers
of land from liability for
generally slippery
conditions of which the
owner may not have notice or
sufficient opportunity to
make safe.”
Gilligan v. Villanova
University, 584 A.2d
1005, 1007 (Pa. Super.
1991).
The potential filing of a
motion for summary judgment
utilizing this defense
should always be kept in
mind with snow and ice
cases, especially where
evidence establishes a
winter storm was proximate
in time or contemporaneous
to plaintiff’s alleged fall.
The two main
exceptions to the hills and
ridges doctrine’s
applicability as a complete
defense are: 1) when there’s
a localized patch of ice and
2) when the icy condition is
influenced by human
intervention (e.g., a
walkway’s been
insufficiently shoveled and
treated with ice melt before
the alleged slip and fall).
Thus, to the extent
plaintiff can establish any
icy condition existed, the
more one can show the
purported condition was a
smooth, non-bumpy sheet
of ice, as counterintuitive
as it may seem, the better.
The assumption of the risk
doctrine and property
owner's general lack of duty
to protect an invitee from
obvious risks can also be
used in conjunction with
hills and ridges, per
Carrender v. Fitterer,
469 A.120 (Pa. 1983) to
circumvent the localized
patch exception.
The attorneys at LUCAS AND CAVALIER, LLC continually monitor updates to these and
other areas of law, and are
available to answer any
questions arising from this
case.
[1]
A case where summary
judgment was granted
in favor of a
condominium
association which
did not clear snow
from a parking lot
by early morning
after an overnight
snowfall.