Relative to the claims against the landowner, the court noted that a snow storm had occurred nine (9) days prior to the Plaintiff’s accident.
When the Defendant restaurant moved for summary judgment based upon the hills and ridges doctrine, the court accepted the Claimant’s argument that the doctrine was not applicable because generally slippery conditions did not prevail in the community at the time of the incident. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserted that this case involved a localized patch of ice. As such, the motion for summary judgment based upon the hills and ridges doctrine was denied.
The court otherwise found no evidence of negligence against the snow removal contractor who was last on the premises nine days before the incident.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may
click HERE.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania
Law Weekly (May 2, 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.