Summary Judgment Affirmed in Black Ice Case Where Plaintiff Could Not Confirm That She Was Caused To Fall By Ice

In a decision marked "Non-precedential" [Why mark any decision non-precedential?!] in the case of Bywater v. Conemugh Mem. Med. Ctr., No. 1072 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 5, 2024 Kunselman, J., Murray, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the liability of a Defendant landowner in a black ice case.

According to the Opinion, at the time of the incident, in a medical center’s parking lot, the Plaintiff slipped and fell against her car when she stepped out of her vehicle. The Plaintiff then perceived that her clothes were wet. However, at her deposition, she did not testify that she saw or felt any ice in the area where she allegedly slipped.

According to the Opinion, no precipitation had recently fallen. There was snow on the ground and the sidewalks were salted. Temperatures had remained below freezing during the week leading up to the incident.

The reproduced record before the Court revealed that, at her deposition, the Plaintiff stated that she looked around and “there was nothing there.” As to why she believed that ice was involved, the Plaintiff stated that, “...[b]ecause you can’t see black ice. Why else would I fall?”

The Superior Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant landowner given that the case established that the Plaintiff only assumed that she slipped on ice, which she never actually saw or detected.

The appellate court also noted that there was no other witness to confirm whether or not any black ice was involved in the incident.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court in affirming summary judgment noted that, “[s]imply stated if [the Plaintiff] could not see the ice that she allegedly fell upon, neither could anyone working for the medical center. If the medical center’s staff could not see the ice, then the medical center neither knew nor should have known that a dangerous, icy condition existed in its parking lot on the morning [the Plaintiff’s] fall.”

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

I send thanks to Attorney Walt McClatchy of McClatchy Law in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Egor Kamelev on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Janitorial Service in a Slip and Fall Case Allegedly Involving an Icy Parking Lot

In the case of Robertson v. Harvard Maintenance, Inc., No. 23-1107 (E.D. Pa. April 11, 2024 Padova, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a matter involving a slip and fall on an allegedly icy parking lot.

According to the record before the court, the Defendant janitorial service’s contract was limited to the provision of cleaning services inside the building and did not extend to addressing any outdoor snow or ice.

The court noted that the allegation of a duty is an essential element of cause of action for negligence.

Here, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish any duty on the party of the Defendant janitorial service owed to the Plaintiff.  As such, summary judgment was granted.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Summary Judgment Granted Based on Hills and Ridges Doctrine

In the case of Irvin v. Wegmans Food Market, Inc., No. CV-21-00360 (C.P. Lyc. Co. April 11, 2023 Lindhardt, J.), the court granted a Defendant store’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.

The court’s decision in this matter was based, in part, on the hills and ridges doctrine.

After reviewing the elements of the hills and ridges doctrine, the court found that certified weather records and video footage established the general wintry conditions that existed at the Plaintiff’s location at the time of the incident.

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the precise location of the Plaintiff’s heel at the time of the incident was a material issue in determining liability in this case.  The court noted that the evidence showed the the Plaintiff's lead foot as he was walking was in the area of the alleged wintry conditions at the time he fell.

Overall, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to produce evidence to get beyond the hills and ridges doctrine.

As such, summary judgment was entered in favor of the store.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 6, 2023).

Issues of Fact Prevent Entry of Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Spruill v. Dreher Ave. Holdings, No. 6444-CV-2021 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 17, 2023 Zulick, J.), the court denied a property owner’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case after finding that issues of material fact existed as to the cause and location of the ice and whether that condition allegedly caused the Plaintiff to fall.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff slipped and fell in her employer’s parking lot after leaving a Christmas party.

After discovery, the Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that the hills and ridges doctrine barred the Plaintiff’s claim.

The court noted that the Plaintiff had produced photographs and testimony that ice had accumulated around a drainpipe and then spread across the sidewalk, went over the curb, and ran across the surface of the parking lot.

The court ruled that the hills and ridges doctrine did not preclude liability where an icy condition was allegedly caused by a drainpipe or some other cause like a defective hydrant or water pipe.

Judge Zulick noted that, where a specific, localized patch of ice existed in the area that was otherwise free of ice and snow, the presence of the hills and ridges necessary to support the hills and ridges defense is not established.

The court found that material questions of fact and testimonial differences as to the cause and location of the ice, as well as whether that condition caused the Plaintiff to fall, required the court to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 16, 2023).

Community Use of Property Doctrine Utilized to Find that a Plaintiff Was a Licensee in a Premises Liability Case

In the case of Sallum v. The Pennsylvania Conf. Assoc. of Seventh-Day Adventists, No. 2021-CV-00234 (C.P. Lehigh Co. April 13, 2023 Caffrey, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.

One of the central issues addressed by the court was whether or not the Plaintiff was a licensee where he slipped and fell in a parking lot and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was not authorized to park in the parking lot.

According to the record before the court, the Plaintiff was a member of a mosque that had previously occupied the property and had parked his vehicle in the parking lot in the premises for over eight (8) to nine (9) years. After the Defendants in this case purchased the property, the Plaintiff allegedly spoke with two (2) individuals about whether or not he would be permitted to continue to use the parking lot. Those individuals, who allegedly identified themselves as employees of the new owner, allegedly told the Plaintiff that he could continue to park his vehicle in the parking lot.

The Plaintiff estimated that he then continued to park in that lot on hundreds of occasions without anyone telling him that he could not park there.

The Defendants asserted that they had notified the public at large that the parking lot was not available for public parking given that the Defendants had posted a sign indicating that unauthorized vehicles would be towed. It was also indicated by the Defendant that they would periodically use chains and a padlock to secure the entrance to the parking lot.  However, the Defendants also noted that, when they noticed unauthorized vehicles in the lot, they did not take steps to have those vehicles removed.

A witness who lived in the neighborhood testified that everyone in the neighborhood parked in the parking lot without any issue.

On the day of the incident, snow and ice had accumulated in the parking lot. The Plaintiff was able to enter the parking lot because it was not secured by any change or a padlock. The record also revealed that the parking lot was full of vehicles but the Plaintiff was able to find the last open space. As the Plaintiff stepped out of his vehicle, he slipped and fell.

The court denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment after finding material issues of fact as to whether or not the Plaintiff was a licensee based upon the alleged implied consent of the use of the land by the landowner.

In so ruling, the trial court recognized the notation of “community use of a property” under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §332 as a basis for denying the Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that, based upon his research, this may be the first Pennsylvania state court in which that rationale was utilized in this context.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Michael J. McKarski of the Bethlehem, PA law firm of Cohen, Feeley, Altemose & Rambo for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image: Photo by Welhim Esaga on www.pexels.com.

Hills and Ridges Doctrine Argument Rejected in Black Ice Case

In the case of Maisonet v. Heidenberg Prop., LLC, No. 5931-CV-2019 (C.P. Monroe Co. Feb. 13, 2023 Zulick, J.), the court denied the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case involving black ice.

The Defendants attempted to argue the hills and ridges doctrine.

The Plaintiff presented expert testimony that the slippery condition was caused by a re-freezing of water which created a black ice condition in a pedestrian pathway.

The court found that issues of fact prevented the entry of summary judgment.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 24, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Egor Kamelev on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted In Slip and Fall Case Where Ice Storm Was Still Ongoing At The Time The Plaintiff Fell

In the case of Nunez v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., No. 1093-CV-2022 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 15, 2022 Williamson, J.), the court granted the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants in a slip and fall premises liability matter.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was employed as a security guard at a warehouse facility. As the Plaintiff arrived for work one day, he slipped and fell in the parking lot.

The records before the court revealed that, on the day of the December 17, 2019 incident, it had been raining throughout the day with periods of freezing rain. The weather records before the court indicated that there was precipitation falling in the area from just after midnight that day until at least 2:34 p.m. later that same day, that is, until about forty (40) minutes after the Plaintiff had fallen at 1:50 p.m.

The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff confirmed during his deposition testimony that there had been icy rain falling that day before he left home for work and that such precipitation continued when he drove to work. The Plaintiff further acknowledged that, when he arrived at work and fell, the icy rain was still falling.

It was additionally noted that the snow removal contractor Defendant was still on site performing snow and ice removal services when the Plaintiff fell.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff reported that, when he arrived at the facility, he slipped and fell as he exited his vehicle. He then continued to slip while trying to get up and had to crawl to another vehicle that was parked in front of his vehicle to pull himself up from the ground. The Plaintiff then admittedly continued to slip on the icy ground as he walked to the building where he worked. The Plaintiff described that the entire area was icy, not just an isolated area by his vehicle.

The court noted that not all of the icy conditions that were still being created could be reasonably addressed prior to the time the Plaintiff had encountered those conditions.  As such, the court entered summary judgment in favor of both the landowner Defendant and the snow removal contractor Defendant based, in part, upon the fact that there was an ongoing winter weather event still occurring generally throughout the area at the time the Plaintiff fell. 

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 27, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Egor Kamelev on www.pexels.com.

Motion for Summary Judgment Denied in Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Yearwood v. Mountain Valley Orthopedics, No. 10812-CV-2014 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 15, 2021 Higgins, Jr., J.), the court found genuine issues of material fact existed in a slip and fall case such that a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

In this matter, the Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on the premises occupied by Mountain Valley Orthopedics.

While the Defendants asserted that they could not be held liable under Pennsylvania law as the Plaintiff slipped and fell during the course of an ongoing snowstorm, the Plaintiff’s countered with the argument that the cause of the icy patch upon which the Plaintiff fell was frozen water runoff from an overhead metal canopy.

The court noted that deposition testimony in the matter showed that runoff was a common problem at the premises. As such, the court noted that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the icy patch was form by runoff, was the product of a premise snowstorm, or was the product of the snowstorm that was occurring on the same day of the incident.

The court also found issues of material fact with regards to the Defendants raising the Choice of Ways Doctrine. The court noted that the Plaintiff testified that he did not perceive the risk of the icy patch as it was covered by snow at the time of the incident. As such, the court found that issue of fact regarding the Plaintiff’s awareness of any risk barred the entry of summary judgment.

Finally, the court noted that there were issues of material fact relative to whether or not the Hills and Ridges Doctrine should be applied since there were issues of fact about the cause of the icy patch and whether the runoff from the canopy constituted a defect. For this additional reason, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 28, 2021).

Source of image:  Photo by Damian McCoig on Unsplash.com.

LOOKING TO TRY TO SETTLE YOUR SLIP OR TRIP AND FALL CASE

BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR

dancummins@Cumminslaw.net

(570) 319-5899

Summary Judgment Granted Based Upon Hills and Ridges Doctrine

In the case of Nucitelli v. Oakview Terrace Condominium Assoc., Inc., No. 7050-CIVIL-2019 (C.P. Monroe Co. June 28, 2021 Williamson, J.), the court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case based upon the hills and ridges doctrine.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff fell while exiting her apartment and walking towards her car.

The court noted that a wintry mix of precipitation had occurred from 6:51 p.m. the day before the Plaintiff’s fall until at least 7:15 a.m. on the day of the fall. The weather report also showed rain through at least 9:45 a.m. on the day of the Plaintiff’s fall. 

The record showed that the Plaintiff had fallen at approximately 8:00 a.m. during that day.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff stated that, as she was coming down the outside steps from her apartment, she slipped and fell on “black ice.” She described the condition as “not shiny” but she did not know if the ice was smooth or flat.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff admitted that she did not know how those conditions were created or how long they had existed. She also had no evidence to show that the Defendant was aware of or had been notified of the condition of the steps on the day of the fall.

After reviewing the current status of the hills and ridges doctrine, the court entered summary judgment.

The court additionally noted that there was no evidence presented that the Defendant failed to act with reasonable care under the circumstances. Nor was there any evidence as to who was actually responsible for maintaining the stairs upon which the Plaintiff fell. The Plaintiff had admitted that she often salted and removed snow from the stairs herself.

The court was also influenced by the fact that the record appeared to confirm that the condition was possibly created by the wintry mix that occurred over night and had switched to rain approximately 45 minutes before the Plaintiff fell.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Jason Banonis of the Allentown, Pennsylvania office of the Marshall Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Rules Hills and Ridges Doctrine Inapplicable

In the case of Dugans v. Concorde West, LLC., No. C-48-CV-2018-00612 (C.P. Northampton Co. Sept. 16, 2019 Roscioli, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a winter slip and fall event.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was residing an apartment complex when a multi-day snowstorm took place in the area.

On the day after the storm ended, the Plaintiff ventured out and was clearing snow from around his vehicles that were parked on the property. After approximately one (1) hour of this work, the Plaintiff slipped and fell on a patch of ice that remained under a thin layer of snow around his vehicle.

The Plaintiff asserted in his lawsuit that this icy area was created by runoff water from gutters and downspouts on the Defendants’ property, which water was allowed to freeze when salt was not properly applied to the area.

The defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment relying, in part, on the hills and ridges doctrine and an argument that the alleged condition upon which the Plaintiff fell was an open and obvious condition and that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury while walking upon that surface.

In its Opinion, the court reviewed the law of the hills and ridges doctrine and emphasized that that doctrine is only applicable when the ice and snow at issue a result of an entirely natural accumulation.

In this case, the Plaintiff was alleging that the icy condition was caused by human negligence in the form of the gutters and downspouts that were allegedly improperly designed, constructed or maintained and which allowed water runoff to flow directly onto walkways.  As such, the court found that a jury could find that the hills and ridges doctrine did not apply.

The court also rejected the defense argument under the open and obvious doctrine by noting that the Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he could not see the ice and was unable to notice the ice that was under the snow.

Given these issues, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defense was denied.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Linda Schick of the Doylestown, PA law firm of Naftulin & Shick for bringing this case to my attention and I send thanks to Attorney Edward Shaughnessy of Shaughnessy Law Office in Easton, PA for providing me with a copy of the same.

Judge Gelb of Luzerne County Enters Summary Judgment in Black Ice Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Sterba v. North End Heritage Parking Co-Ops, LLC, No. 2017-074 (C.P. Luz. Co. Sept. 24, 2019 Gelb, J.), the court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by North End Heritage Parking in a slip and fall case involving black ice in a parking lot.

According to the Opinion, snow squalls had occurred earlier in the day of the accident. By the time the Plaintiff got to the parking lot in question later than evening, her car did not skid or encounter any ice or snow. Additionally, the Plaintiff admitted that she did not see any ice or snow on the ground when she got out of her vehicle. 

After slipping and falling, the Plaintiff discovered a patch of black ice under her. She had to slide herself back two (2) arm lengths off of the icy area in order to be able to stand. 

The Plaintiff admitted that she did not know how long the patch of ice was on the parking lot surface before she fell. 

The record otherwise indicated that the snow that had fallen earlier in the day had been plowed and pushed against the back of the lot. 

The record also noted that the patches of black ice were concentrated towards drains in the back of the parking lot as melting snow from earlier in the day had moved towards the drains and the water had refroze. 

After reviewing the current status of Pennsylvania law regarding the duties owed by a possessor of land, the court held that, given that there was no evidence of the length of time in which the icy patches had existed prior to the Plaintiff’s fall, the Plaintiff could not sustain their burden of proof.

In a footnote, Judge Gelb notably indicated that “[i]ce is more akin to a transitory spill than to a semi-permanent condition of land because it can develop suddenly and even melt in a short period of time depending on environmental conditions.” 

In light of this finding, the court stated that it was “inconsequential to the issue of constructive notice that Plaintiff saw the black ice immediately after her fall as no one saw the ice prior to the fall and the duration of its existence in the parking lot cannot be determined on this record.” See fn. 2. 

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

I send thanks to Attorney William P. Cech of the Wilkes-Barre, PA law offices of Robert T. Panowicz & Associates for bringing this case to my attention.

Summary Judgment Granted in Fall on Ice Case

In the case of Sanchez v. Snowshoe Condo. Ass’n, Inc., No. 9276-Civil-2015 (C.P. Monroe Co. Sept. 19, 2019 Williamson, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of a Defendant in a slip and fall case where the Plaintiff failed to establish how the icy condition was created or how the Defendant could have had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff lived at a property located within the Defendant’s condominium association.

At approximately 6:00 a.m. on a December morning, the Plaintiff left her home to take her dog for a walk. When she returned to her unit approximately 15 minutes later, the Plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy spot on a bottom step leading into her unit.

Judge Williamson cited to Pennsylvania law that confirmed that property owners were not required to keep the premises completely free of snow and ice at all times. Rather, under the hills and ridges doctrine, owners were not liable when there were generally slippery conditions and where the ice and/or snow had not yet accumulated into unreasonable ridges or elevations. Rather, the law only requires that a property owner act within a reasonable time, after notice, to remove snow and ice when it presents as a dangerous condition.

In this matter, both the Plaintiff and her daughter testified that they did not know when or how the ice had formed. The Plaintiff also admitted that she did not notice the ice the night before or even when she had left her home to begin to take a walk with her dogs. The court also noted that her fall occurred while it was still dark outside.

In the record before the court there were weather reports that showed that no precipitation had fallen on the date in question. The court found that, given the lack of precipitation, it was unclear how a Defendant landowner would have known about the alleged formation of any ice.

Judge Williamson stated that there was no other evidence to indicate that the icy condition had existed for such a long period of time that the Defendant knew about it or should have known about it. At most, it appeared that the condition may have existed for a few hours between the sunset and sunrise. The court held that this was not a reasonable time frame in which to expect a Defendant to locate and correct an allegedly icy condition.

Based upon the above, the court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligent in terms of how the alleged icy condition occurred or how the Defendant could have known about it.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 22, 2019).

Hills and Ridges Doctrine Protects Snow Removal Contractor From Liability

In the non-precedential case of Hare v. Zaffino, No. 1349 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Aug. 28, 2019 Bender, J., Dubow, J., and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.) (Op. by Dubow, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s Opinion that the hills and ridges doctrine shielded a snow removal company from liability.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff fell after slipping in 5-6 inches of snow in an unplowed area of an industrial complex that had contracted the Defendant’s company to clear the snow. 

The Opinion noted that record confirmed that it was still snowing at the time of the incident.  

Under the hills and ridges doctrine, the Plaintiff might prove that the snow had accumulated in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians, and that the property owner had notice, either actual or constructive, or that condition, and that it was that dangerous accumulation of snow or ice that caused the Plaintiff to fall.  

The Plaintiff argued that, under the applicable contract, the snow removal contractor had an increased duty of care that rendered the hills and ridges doctrine inapplicable.

The court found that the snow removal agreement did not impose any general duty upon the snow removal contractor and that the hills and ridges doctrine therefore applied.  

The Court also rejected the Plaintiff's contention that the hills and ridges doctrine did not apply to the snow removal contractor because he was not the owner of the land where the Plaintiff fell.

As noted, the court found that summary judgment was appropriate under that doctrine.

If anyone wishes to review a copy of this Decision may click this LINK.

Source: Article: “Court: ‘Hills and Ridges’ Doctrine Shields Snow Removal Company from Suit” by P.J. D’Annunzio of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 3, 2019).

Application of Hills and Ridges Doctrine Results in Summary Judgment; No Duty to Pre-Treat Surfaces

In the case of Dougherty v. Jay, No. 2017-00480-40 (C.P. Bucks Co. April 24, 2019 Trauger, J.), the court entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendant under the hills and ridges doctrine.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff drove to the Defendants’ residence to pick up one of the Defendants to drive her to work.   At the time, temperatures in the area were below freezing and there was intermittent freezing rain and freezing drizzle that had fallen.   While in the Defendant’s driveway, the Plaintiff got out of the car to retrieve a newspaper from the ground and slipped and fell.  

In its Opinion, the court in this Dougherty case outlined the current status of the hills and ridges doctrine.   The court noted that recovery for a fall on a surface covered by a natural accumulation of ice or snow requires an additional showing of, among other factors, an unreasonable accumulation or “hills and ridges” of ice and/or snow.   The court noted that this doctrine serves to limit the liability of landowners because to require one’s walk to always be free of ice and snow would be to impose an impossible burden in view of the climate in Pennsylvania.  

The Plaintiff attempted to get around the hills and ridges doctrine by arguing that the freezing rain that caused the ice did not qualify as “generally slippery conditions.”   The Plaintiff asserted that localized ice can result in liability when slippery conditions do not exist generally in the community.  

However, the court noted that, in this case, Plaintiff had conceded that his presence on the Defendants’ property was due to freezing rain that was generally falling in the area.   The court also noted that the Plaintiff did not argue that there was any unnatural source of accumulation on the Defendants’ driveway.   

The court additionally rejected the Plaintiffs assertion that pre-treatment of the driveway area could have prevented any dangerous conditions.   Rather, the only duty of a landowner to guard against the transient danger of ice on a pavement is to act within a reasonable time after notice of the condition and to then remove it.  

Given that the court found no evidence of liability presented by the Plaintiff, it requested the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in this Rule 1925 Opinion.

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

UPDATE:  In a Non-precedential decision issued on March 6, 2020, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed this decision, finding that genuine issues of material fact prevented the entry of summary judgment.  This Non-precedential decision by the Superior Court can be viewed HERE.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules that Rear End Accident is Evidence of Negligence Per Se

In the case of Smith v. Wells, No. 2254 EDA 2018 (Pa. Super. June 7, 2019 Kunselman, J., Murray, J., and Pelligrini, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court granted a Plaintiff a new trial in a case where the trial court refused to grant the Plaintiff judgment as a matter of law in a case where the trial court erroneously refused to find that the Defendant’s actions in rear-ending the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and causing a chain reaction accident amounted to negligence per se under the assured clear distance ahead rule found under 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3361.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was driving on the Pennsylvania Turnpike when he saw traffic braking ahead. The Plaintiff successfully brought his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance between himself and the car ahead without striking any vehicles.   The Defendant, who was traveling behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, did not. 

During his testimony, the Defendant admitted that he did not stop quick enough and rear-ended the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of him.  

In his opening statement to the jury, the defense counsel advised the jury that the collision was the Defendant’s fault “no question about it.”   At trial, the defense focused on the issue of whether the accident actually caused any injuries to the Plaintiff.   The defense also asserted that the Plaintiff had an extensive prior medical history and was already suffering from the same symptoms that he sought to attribute to the Defendant’s conduct in this matter.  

The Plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that the Defendant negligently drove his vehicle into the rear of the Plaintiff's vehicle and breached the standard of care as a matter of law. The trial court denied that motion and submitted a verdict slip to the jury that contained a question of whether or not the Defendant was negligent. The jury answered that question in the negative.

The Plaintiff moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the question of negligence which was denied.  The Plaintiff also filed a post-trial motion seeking the same result.  The trial court denied that motion as well.  This appeal followed. 

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed and rejected a prior statement by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a case from 1938, Cirquitella v. C.C. Callaghan, Inc., 200 A.588 (Pa. 1938), in which that Court noted, in part, that “the mere happening of a rear-end collision does not [at common law] constitute negligence as a matter of law on the part of the driver in the rear….” 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court in this Smith v. Wells case limited the Cirquitella decision to its facts and its ancient time period of 1938. The Superior Court noted that, in the recent times, the Pennsylvania legislature had passed 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3361 in which it is provided, in pertinent part, that “No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, nor at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.   * * *”

The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Smith v. Wells noted that “§3361 is a unified statute on safe-driving speeds and distances.”   The Smith v. Wells court held that this statute prohibits two distinct forms of illegal driving.  “The first is driving at any speed that is unreasonable and imprudent for the conditions and hazards of the road.   The second is driving at any speed that prevents a driver from fully braking before striking a car, pedestrian, or other object ahead."  

The Superior Court noted that a violation of these provisions of this statute amount to negligence per se on the part of the driver.  

In review the facts before it, the court stated that the evidence firmly established that the Defendant drove at a speed that made it impossible for him to stop his vehicle within the assured clear distance ahead and that the trial court, therefore, erred when it did not find that the Defendant’s violation of §3361 amounted to negligence per se. 

Significantly, the Pennsylvania Superior Court also noted that there was no claim by the defense that a sudden emergency existed or any other affirmative defenses “such as brake-failure, ice on the highway, or the Plaintiff’s contributory negligence to excuse this rear-end collision."  

As such, the Superior Court vacated the judgment entered in favor of the Defendant below and also reversed the Order denying the Plaintiff’s request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.   The case was remanded for a new trial on the issues of causation and damages only (with the issue of negligence being considered decided).

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Another Court Rules No Liability For Slip and Fall That Occurs While Precipitation Still Falling

In the case of Rosatti v. McKinney  Properties, Inc., No. 2017-0022 (C.P. Centre Co. Jan. 22, 2019 Grine, J.), the court entered summary judgment in favor of a Defendant and owner under the Hills and Ridges Doctrine.  

According to the Opinion, when the Plaintiff arrived at the property at around 4:00 p.m., freezing rain was falling outside.   A few hours later, when the Plaintiff decided to leave the premises at around 7:00 p.m., it was snowing with freezing rain.   The Plaintiff slipped and fell while leaving the property.  

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Hills and Ridges Doctrine.   After reviewing the factors at issue under that doctrine, which required the Plaintiff to show that the snow and ice had accumulated on the walkway in ridges or elevations in such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrian traveling thereon, the court entered summary judgment.  

Judge Grine also emphasized that under the prevailing case law “[A] landowner has no obligation to correct the conditions until a reasonable time after the winter storm has ended.”  Collins v. Phila. Sub. Dev. Corp., 179 A.3d 69, 75 (Pa. Super. 2018) (emphasis added in Rosatti).  

The court additionally noted that “[a] property owner does not have a duty to clear ice or snow from walkways as soon as it forms or falls.   Citing with “see” signal, Tucker v. Bensalem Twp. School District, 987 A.2d 198, 203 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).  

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

Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment Based on Hills and Ridges Doctrine

In the case of Padilla v. Moravian Development Corp., No. C-48-CV-2017-1007 (C.P. Northampt. Co. Jan. 23, 2019 McFadden, J.), Judge F.P. Kimberly McFadden of the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas recently issued a detailed Order denying a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the hills and ridges doctrine.  

The court recited the current status of the law of the hills and ridges doctrine and emphasized that the doctrine may only be applied in cases where the snow and ice complained of are a result of an entirely natural accumulation following a recent snowfall.  The court noted that the hills and ridges doctrine does not apply if the ice was of artificial origin.  

In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that she fell on ice that accumulated as a result of prior attempts to clear the sidewalk. 

The court found that material issues of fact remained in the case whether the Plaintiff’s fall was caused by natural accumulations of snow and ice during an ongoing weather event, or whether the Plaintiff’s fall was caused by a condition of the land created by human intervention.  

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

 

I send thanks to Attorney Steven A. Bergstein of the Allentown, Pennsylvania office of Engler, Wiener & Bergstein for bring this Order to my attention.

Another Court Rules No Liability Under Hills and Ridges For Fall During Winter Event

Another decision has been rendered whereby a trial court has granted summary judgment to a Defendant under the Hills and Ridges Doctrine in a case where the Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell during an active winter storm. 

In the case of Beauford v. Second Nature Landscaping & Construction, Inc., No. 2016-CV-8925 (C.P. Del. Co. Nov. 19, 2018 Green, J.), the court held that a Defendant landowner was not liable for alleged injuries suffered by a Plaintiff in a slip and fall event that occurred during an active storm since the Defendant had no obligation under Pennsylvania law to correct the conditions until reasonable a time after the storm ended.  

In its Opinion, the court noted that the facts pertaining to the weather conditions leading up to and after the Plaintiff’s event were uncontested.  More specifically, the court found that there was no factual dispute that the Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on an alleged ice puddle during an active weather event, that is, at a time when generally slippery conditions prevailed in the community.  

The court noted that, under applicable Pennsylvania law, a landowner has no obligation to correct any wintry conditions until a reasonable time after a winter storm has ended.   In this regard, the court cited Collins v. Phila. Suburban Dev. Corp., 179 A.3d 69 (Pa.Super. 2018), in which the Superior Court also held that there is no liability to landowners to persons injured as a result of a fall that occurs while a winter weather event is still active.   The Tort Talk post on the Collins case, as well as a Link to that decision, can be reviewed HERE.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion issued by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas in the Beauford case, the court requested the Superior Court to affirm its entry of summary judgment. 

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

Lackawanna County Summary Judgment Motion on Hills and Ridges Doctrine Denied

In the recent hills and ridges decision in the case of Evans v. Simrell, No. 14-CV-2483 (C.P. Lacka.  Co. Oct. 4, 2018 Nealon, J.), the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that genuine issues of material fact existed to be determined by a jury.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that he fell on ice that was in front of the Defendant’s home on the sidewalk.   The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiffs could not sustain his burden of proving that he slipped and fell on hills and ridges of ice situated on the sidewalk.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was walking down the sidewalk which was shoveled and free of any ice near the Defendant’s premises.  However, as soon as the Plaintiff’s stepped on the sidewalk in front of the Defendant’s property, he slipped and fell on ice.    The Plaintiff telephoned his mother who came to the scene and likewise observed that the nearby sidewalks were clear and free of snow or ice.   The mother testified that, as soon as she reached the Defendant’s sidewalk, she started to slide on the ice and had to grab the hedges to prevent herself from falling to the ground.  

The Plaintiff’s mother called 911 to request an ambulance.   According to the information provided to the court, when the paramedics arrived, one of the paramedics also slid and fell on the subject sidewalk as well as the paramedics were also slipping on the ice.  

In opposing the summary judgment motion, the Plaintiffs asserted that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff was caused to fall on a localized patch of ice as opposed to as a result of generally slippery conditions existing in the area.  

In this regard, the court noted that there were triable issues of fact as to whether general slippery conditions existed throughout the community. 

More specifically, both the Plaintiff and his mother testified that other areas of sidewalk near the Defendant’s property were shoveled and free of snow and ice.   According to the record, one of the responding paramedics also noted that there was no ice present on the abutting road and adjacent grass, and that he only observed ice on the Defendant’s sidewalk.  

Judge Nealon ruled that it was within the sole province of the jury to resolve this conflicting testimony and to determine the weight, if any, to be accorded to these varying accounts.  

Given these issues of fact, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the hills and ridges doctrine.

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

Do you need help bringing your slip and fall case to a close?  Please contact me to discuss Cummins Mediation Services and to schedule a private mediation.  Low rates and proven success.  Please call 570-346-0745 to schedule a Mediation.

Summary Judgment Granted in Monroe County Under Hills and Ridges Doctrine

In the case of Bless v. Pocono Mountain Recovery Center, LLC., No. 8167 - CV - 2016(C.P. Monroe Co. May 17, 2018 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur L. Zulick, of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the hills and ridges doctrine in a case where the record contained evidence of a recent snowfall which caused slippery conditions. 

According to the Opinion, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s husband was coming to visit her at the Defendants' premises.  When the Plaintiff saw that her husband's vehicle became stuck in the ice and snow on the roadway leading up to the location, the Plaintiff began to walk towards her husband and, while doing so, slipped and fell.

The Plaintiffs attempted to avoid the summary judgment by arguing that the hills and ridges doctrine was inapplicable because conditions were not generally icy in the area at the time of the incident and that the accumulation on the road was allegedly not natural.  

Judge Arthur L. Zulick
Monroe County

After reviewing the current status of the hills and ridges doctrine law, Judge Zulick reviewed the record before him and found no evidence of any unreasonable accumulations of snow or ice such that any ridges or elevations had formed.  

The court also noted that the record confirmed that the Plaintiff knew that the road was hazardous before she stepped on to it because she had seen her husband’s car slide backwards down the roadway on the hill.  

The court also noted that, although the Plaintiffs argued that there was insufficient evidence of generally slippery conditions prevailing in the area that day, both Plaintiffs had testified that there had indeed been a recent snow fall.  

Based upon the record before the court, summary judgment was granted under the hills and ridges doctrine.

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 5, 2018).