The court found that questions of fact regarding the Defendant’s duty to plow under its snow removal contract rendered summary judgment inappropriate.
The court also found that there were questions of fact as to whether the ice in the parking lot had accumulated from natural causes such that summary judgment was precluded under the Hills and Ridges doctrine. In this regard, the court noted, in part, that there did not appear to be generally icy conditions in the area. The Hills and Ridges doctrine was noted not to apply to issues involving localized ice because it would be comparatively easy for a property owner to alleviate a localized ice condition.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case may contact the Pennsylvania Law Weekly’s Instant Case Service by calling 1-800-276-7427 and provide the above PICS Case No. and pay a small fee.