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.
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.