Summary Judgment Denied in Parking Lot Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Coolbaugh v. Sonesta Select Allentown Bethlehem Airport, No. 2023-C-1548 (C.P. Leh. Co. Nov. 13, 2024 Reichley, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case involving an alleged slip and fall in the Defendants’ parking lot.

In denying the motion, the court held that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the application of the hills and ridges doctrine where a de-icing of the parking lot had occurred approximately twenty-four (24) hours before the Plaintiff’s accident.

According to the record before the court, there was evidence that the Plaintiff fell when temperatures were around freezing and where it had snowed three or four days earlier. The court noted that, where the evidence also indicated that the parking lot had been de-iced approximately twenty-four (24) hours before the Plaintiff’s accident, there was an issue of fact on whether the alleged accumulation of the ice upon which the Plaintiff had slipped was a natural accumulation or not.

Given these issues of fact, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

The court also denied the Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis of rejecting the Defendants’ argument that they had delegated the snow and ice removal duties to a third party under a contract. The court stated that the record was silent as to whether the moving Defendants had relinquished possession and control of the parking lot during or after the third party had performed snow removal services.

The court additionally noted that there were factual questions regarding the Defendants’ notice of the parking lot’s condition where snowy and ice conditions had been observed in the lot for days or weeks leading up to the Plaintiff’s accident.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 30, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Wolfgang Lutzgendorf on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted Relative To Slip and Fall That Occurred During an Active Snowstorm

In the case of King v. Hermitage Plaza, No. 2023-CV-1055 (C.P. Mercer Co. Jan. 14, 2025 Amrhein, Jr., J.), the court entered summary judgment in a slip and fall case where the Plaintiff slipped and fell in a parking lot owned by the Defendant during an ongoing snowstorm.

According to the Opinion, on the day of the incident, the Plaintiff exited her place of employment during an ongoing snowstorm, walked across the parking lot owned by the Defendant and went to her vehicle. The Plaintiff then moved her vehicle closer to her place of business by parking at the curb. When the Plaintiff then exited her vehicle again at that point, she slipped and fell on the snow and/or ice that had accumulated near the curb.

The Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result and attributed the incident to the Defendant’s failure to fully remove snow and ice from the premises. The Plaintiff sued both the landowner and a snow removal contractor.

In its decision, the court reviewed the current status of the hills and ridges doctrine in Pennsylvania. The court also cited to the case of Collins v. Phila. Suburban Dev. Corp., 179 A.3d 69, 75 (Pa. Super. 2018), for the proposition that a landowner has no obligation to address any snow and ice on the premises “until a reasonable time after the winter storm has ended.”

The court in this case, again relying on the Collins decision, ruled that a period of approximately six (6) hours (or overnight) does not constitute an unreasonable passage of time concerning a landowner’s failure to remove ice and snow, particularly when a winter storm is ongoing during that period.

The court emphasized that the record in this case demonstrated that the site of the incident experienced severe winter weather conditions before, during, and after the subject slip and fall incident. The Plaintiff noted that she had observed the Defendant snow removal contractor plowing the lot approximately one hour before her fall. The court stated that this plowing activity fell within the six hour to overnight window established in the Collins case.

The court also noted that photographs of the parking lot which were taken by the Plaintiff immediately after the fall demonstrated that the lot was actively being cleared throughout the day. There was also a continued snow fall thereafter.

The court also found here that the Plaintiff did not present evidence to show that snow and ice has unreasonably accumulated to such a degree as to unreasonably obstruct travel so as to satisfy the elements of the Hills and Ridges Doctrine, or that an unreasonable time has passed after the end of a storm. 

Consequently, the Plaintiff was unable to prove the breach of duty element essential to this negligent claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not able to sustain a negligence claim and the court therefore entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh office of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Annie Niemaszyk on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Parking Lot Case Based on Open and Obvious Doctrine

In the case of Ersick v. Joe’s Store, No. 3082-CV-2022 (C.P. Westmoreland Co. July 25, 2024 Smail, J.), the court addressed issues in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a trip and fall in the parking lot of a store. The Plaintiff allegedly fell over a black and yellow parking block that she allegedly could not see because her view was obscured by the truck from which she exited in a parking spot immediately before she fell.

The defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that, first, the Plaintiff failed to present evidence to identify what caused her to fall and, secondly, that the parking blocks at issue were known by the Plaintiff or were otherwise open and obvious. 

The Plaintiff countered with an argument that the evidence revealed that her fall was caused by a defective parking block and that the question of a dangerous condition should be lift to a jury.

Reviewing then record before it, the court found that the Plaintiff did indeed identify which parking block allegedly caused her to fall.

However, the court agreed with the defense that the parking block at issue was an open and obvious condition that the Plaintiff admittedly observed prior to her fall down event. It was additionally indicated that the incident occurred during daylight conditions, that the Plaintiff had previously visited the store during the day, that the Plaintiff recalled attempting to step over the block, and that the Plaintiff was able to recall that the parking block had yellow or orange stripes on it.

As such, the court granted summary judgment to the defense after finding that the condition which allegedly caused the Plaintiff to fall was an open and obvious condition.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas W. Summers of the Pittsburgh office of the Summers McDonnell Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. law firm.

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.

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.

Clark v. Beers Court Reverses Itself and Allows Claim of Reckless Conduct to Proceed

A Tort Talk Blog post from last week reviewed the case of Clark v. Beers, No. 2019-GN-1484 (C.P. Blair Co. Aug. 13, 2019 Bernard, P.J.), in which the court granted a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections seeking the dismissal of allegations of recklessness in a motor vehicle versus pedestrian litigation but allowed the Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to add additional facts.  Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

As an UPDATE it is noted that the trial court reversed itself when it was presented with a Motion for Reconsideration by the Plaintiff.  As such, the court found that the allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint could support a claim of recklessness and the claim was therefore allowed to proceed into discovery.  Click HERE to review the Court's Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

Claims of Reckless Conduct Dismissed Where No Supporting Facts Alleged

In the case of Clark v. Beers, No. 2019-GN-1484 (C.P. Blair Co. Aug. 13, 2019 Bernard, P.J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections seeking the dismissal of allegations of recklessness in a motor vehicle versus pedestrian litigation but allowed the Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to add additional facts.

According to the Opinion, the accident occurred when the Plaintiff was pushing a shopping cart as she exited a market and was walking in the parking lot. The Defendant was backing his vehicle from a parking space and contacted the Plaintiff with the rear of his vehicle, allegedly causing the Plaintiff to fall down and sustain physical injuries.  

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted allegations of “negligent and reckless” conduct. 

The court noted that these allegations were pled “as if they are indistinguishable” and that “[i]t may well be that Plaintiff only means to assert an action in negligence.”   

The court in the Clark case went on to hold that, if the Plaintiff intended to pursue a theory of reckless conduct on the part of the Defendant then specific factual allegations supporting claims beyond mere negligence must be asserted.  

Given that no such facts were pled in this Complaint, the court granted Preliminary Objections seeking the dismissal of the claims of reckless conduct.  However, as noted, the court granted the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the Complaint to either add specific facts in support of a claim for reckless conduct or to eliminate the reference to reckless conduct from the Complaint altogether.    

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

UPDATE: The trial court reversed itself when it was presented with a Motion for Reconsideration by the Plaintiff.  As such, the court found that the allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaint could support a claim of recklessness and the claim was therefore allowed to proceed into discovery.  Click HERE to review the Court's Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

I send thanks to Attorney Brad E. Haas of the Pittsburgh office of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin for bringing this decision to my attention.