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 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 Motions Addressed in Snow Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Snair v. Speedway, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00376-CCW (W.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2021 Wiegand, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part motions for summary judgment filed by a gas station, a snow removal service company, and that company’s subcontractor in a Plaintiff’s action for an alleged slip and fall event that allegedly occurred in a gas station parking lot matter.

The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to any constructive notice on the part of the gas station.

The court also found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not the snow removal service company owed any duty to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the court found that the subcontractor was not liable for indemnity or contribution under its contract.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff slipped and fell at the gas station while refueling his truck.

The Defendant gas station had contracted with the snow removal service company to provide snow and ice removal services at the gas station. That snow removal service company had contracted with a Defendant subcontractor to complete the plowing the salting.

The Plaintiff argued in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment that, since the snow and ice were under a canopy and was dirty, a jury could infer that the snow had been present for a significant period of time such that the gas station owner should have cleared the same. The Plaintiff also presented evidence that station employees were supposed to check for snow and ice around the pumps throughout the day and there was no evidence that any inspection had been performed from one day to the next leading up to the incident. As stated, the court found issues of material fact with respect to the potential liability for the gas station company and allowed that claim to proceed to a jury.

The court also found issues of fact regarding the Defendants argument that the “choice of ways doctrine” barred recovery for the Plaintiff. The court noted that there were issues of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff failed to avoid an obvious hazard and also chose a dangerous route over a safe route.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 4, 2021).

No Duty of Care Found on Service Companies Where Tree Limb Fell and Injured Plaintiff

In the case of Matthews v. Prospect Crozer, LLC, No. 355 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Nov. 23, 2020 Dubow, J., Lazarus, J., Ford Elliott, P..J.E.) (Op. by Dubow, J.), the court affirmed a trial court dismissal of the Plaintiff’s negligence claims against certain Defendants where there was no evidence that those Defendants undertook an ongoing duty to perform inspections and maintenance of trees on the property in a case where a tree limb fell and injured the Plaintiff. 

According to the Opinion, the Defendant landowner had a contract with the landscaping company and a snow removal company to periodically do work on the premises as needed. 

According to what the court termed as "hypothetical evidence" generated during the course of discovery, the landscaping Defendant and the snow removal Defendant generally noted that they would have notified the property owner if either noticed an issue with the trees on the property. 

The landscaping Defendant also noted it had occasionally performed tree-related work years prior to the incident. 

It was also generally and hypothetically noted during the course of discovery that the property owner expected both companies to inspect and maintain trees on the property as of the time of the Plaintiff’s incident.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment after finding that the testimonial evidence cited by the Plaintiff in the record was hypothetical in nature and, therefore, insufficient to support any argument that the landscaping company or the snow removal company undertook a duty to inspect and maintain the trees on the property.

The court also noted that the fact that the landscaping company had occasionally performed tree-related work years before the subject incident was also insufficient to establish that the landscaping company had gratuitously agreed to inspect and maintain the trees.

The court also noted that the property owner’s stated alleged expectation that the Defendant companies would have maintained the trees was also insufficient to impose a duty upon the landscaping company and the snow removal company in the absence of any evidence that they actually undertook that duty.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 8, 2020).

Source of image: NewsNowDC.com

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).

Summary Judgment Denied to Landowner In Slip and Fall Case But Granted For Snow Removal Contractor

In the case of Graham v. K Investments, Ltd., No. 4376-2014 (C.P. Monroe Co. March 13, 2017 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur Zulick of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas denied a restaurant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.   However, the court did grant summary judgment in favor of a snow removal contractor.  

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). 

Request for Summary Judgment in Favor of Snow Removal Contractor Denied in Slip and Fall Case

In his recent decision in the case of Reilly v. Main Avenue Realty Development, No. 2015-CV-1250 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Mar. 31, 2017 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed the liability of a snow removal contractor in a premises liability action arising from an alleged fall on an isolated patch of ice on commercial property.   The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the snow removal contractor.  

In doing so, the court made reference to the contract between the snow removal contractor and the premises owner with regards to the required conduct of the snow removal contractor.   The court also noted that a written agreement may always be modified by subsequent conduct of the parties indicating a new or different intent under the contract.  

In this matter, the Plaintiff allegedly fell on an isolated patch of ice that was allegedly created by a dripping overhang near the entrance of a store.  

While the court found that the snow removal contractor was not liable under the contract between the parties to remedy the dripping overhang in the absence of evidence that the snow removal contractor was requested to do so, Judge Nealon found that evidenced in the record indicated that recent trace amounts of snow fall had fallen on the premises which could be found by the jury to have triggered a duty on the part of the snow removal contractor to visit and maintain the premises.  

Accordingly, the court found that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the snow removal contractor would have observed and treated the ice patch from which the Plaintiff allegedly fell if he had visited the property to address the recent snow fall.  As such, the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of the snow removal contractor was denied.

 

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK.