Lucas and Cavalier, LLC Attorneys At Law

Home Firm Overview Practice Areas Members of the Firm Case Results Publications Events Contact Us Directions

 

PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT HOLDS HILLS AND RIDGES DOCTRINE BARS PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES LIABILITY CLAIMS FOR SLIP AND FALL DURING ACTIVE BLIZZARD
 
June 2018 
 Sean L. Phelan
Lucas and Cavalier, LLC  
 
Sean L. Phelan

            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.


 
Serving your litigation needs in Pennsylvania and New Jersey

 

Pennsylvania
1500Walnut Street,  Suite 502

Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone (215) 751-9192

Pennsylvania
100 Front Street,  Suite 101
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania  19428
Phone (610) 424-1400   

New Jersey
126 White Horse Pike, Third Floor
Haddon Heights, New Jersey  08035
Phone (856) 546-7172     

 


.

 

Home  - Firm Overview  - Practice Areas  - Members of the Firm  - Case Results  - Publications  - Events - Contact Us  - Directions

 © 2022 Lucas and Cavalier, LLC. All Rights Reserved.