Court Rules that Winter Conditions in Parking Lot Were Open and Obvious To Slip and Fall Plaintiff

In the case of Hinton-Hardison v. Kohl’s, Inc., No. 2022-SU-003063 (C.P. York Co. Sept. 22, 2025 Menges, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case. According to the Opinion, the incident occurred at a Kohl’s department store. Kohl’s had contracted with a snow removal contractor to take care of the property. That snow removal contractor subcontracted the work to a different snow removal contractor.

The subcontractor snow removal company filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the Plaintiff’s assumption of the risk.

The court agreed.

The court noted that the condition of the ice and/or snow at issue in this case was the type that would be apparent to and recognized by a reasonable person, exercising normal perception, intelligence, and judgment. The court noted that its determination that reasonable minds on a jury could not differ as to the conclusion that the conditions in the parking lot presented as an obvious condition.

As such, the court felt “constrained” to grant the snow removal contractor’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Jennifer P. Carter of the York, PA law firm of Griffith, Lerman, Lutz & Scheib for bringing this case to my attention.