BlogLine

Pennsylvania contractors protected by hills and ridges doctrine

9/30/24

By: Nicholas J. Hubner

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defense in a slip and fall case involving “dangerous, icy” conditions. Plaintiff filed suit against multiple parties, including the property owner/landlord, the property manager, and the snow removal contractor. Plaintiff claimed he slipped and fell while walking into work because of an unsafe accumulation of ice on the sidewalk. Phillips v. Altair Real Estate Services, et al., No. 204-06 WDA 2024, 2024 WL 4052199 (Pa. Super. Sep. 5, 2024).  

The trial court ruled in favor of defendants and against plaintiff (Phillips) by applying the “hills and ridges doctrine” and found that no exceptions applied, which precluded any liability action against the defendants, including the snow removal contractor. 

Phillips attempted to argue that the hills and ridges defense did not apply to the snow removal contractor because the contractor was not the “land possessor”, unlike the property owner/manager defendants. However, the court ruled that the hills and ridges doctrine applied to snow removal contractors because the claim was based in tort (i.e. negligence) rather than contract. The court affirmed the extension of the doctrine to the contractor and effectively determined that a snow removal contractor is protected from liability under the doctrine to the same degree as a landowner. See Phillips, 2024 WL 4052199 at *9. 

Phillips argued that the ice that accumulated on the premises was in “such size and character to the extent that it unreasonably obstructed travel and constituted a danger”. Id. at *3. He argued that defendants had actual and constructive notice of the dangerous condition and that the icy condition was the direct and proximate cause of his fall. Importantly, Phillips tried to emphasize that because the snow removal contractor applied salt to the premises approximately five hours before the incident, that the contractor’s intervention contributed to or caused the dangerous condition – rather than due to an entirely natural condition.  

The defense countered that plaintiff’s theory lacked evidence and failed to meet his burden of proof. Specifically, Phillips presented no evidence establishing that the defendants had permitted ice to accumulate in ridges or elevations to unreasonably obstruct travel or that any of the exceptions to the hills or ridges doctrine applied. Phillips deposition testimony was critical to defense. Phillips was unable to articulate any size or character of the ice, and he agreed that icy sleet or rain had been falling all morning and was continuing to fall at the time of the incident. Therefore, such conditions are considered natural phenomenon incidental to our climate under the law.  

The court found it was undisputed that freezing precipitation was falling at the time of the incident and that Phillips did not establish the size and character of the ice amounted to an unreasonable danger. Furthermore, the court agreed that the snow removal contractor’s prior application of salt did not amount to “antecedent negligence”. Id. at *6-7. The court agreed that general slippery conditions were present from the time plaintiff left home (if not earlier) through the time of the incident. Moreover, Phillips testified that he did not see salt and he did not believe the area was even salted – and so Phillips could not have relied upon the salting activity to argue for liability against the contractor. 

This decision is another good reminder that a snow removal contractor has defenses like that of the property owner or manager, and it may contest liability for a slip and fall due to snow and ice conditions.  

The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary are highly skilled at defending slip and fall claims, especially in the snow and ice context. FMG Attorneys Joshua G. Ferguson at jferguson@fmglaw.com and Nicholas J. Hubner at nicholas.hubner@fmglaw.com may be contacted further for any questions or comment.