Court: 'Hills and Ridges' Doctrine Shields Snow Removal Company From Slip-and-Fall Suit
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld summary judgment in favor of a snow removal business sued for negligence, reasoning that the company is protected by the "hills and ridges" doctrine.
August 29, 2019 at 02:24 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld summary judgment in favor of a snow removal business sued for negligence, reasoning that the company is protected by the "hills and ridges" doctrine.
A three-judge panel of the Superior Court consisting of Judges John Bender, Alice Dubow and Kate Ford Elliott affirmed the ruling of a Warren County judge in James M. Hare Jr.'s lawsuit against Mark Zaffino Snow Removal.
Hare sued Zaffino after slipping in five to six inches of snow in an unplowed area of an industrial complex that contracted with Zaffino's company, according to Dubow's opinion. Hare fractured his left leg and subsequently sued.
The Warren County trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of Zaffino based on the "hills and ridges" doctrine, which states that a plaintiff must prove "(1) that snow and ice had accumulated on the sidewalk in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians travelling thereon; (2) that the property owner had notice, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such condition; (3) that it was the dangerous accumulation of snow and ice which caused the plaintiff to fall."
On appeal, Hare argued that the court erroneously granted summary judgment based on the doctrine because Zaffino was not the property owner or in possession of the area.
Citing the 1991 case of Gilligan v. Villanova University, Dubow said, "'The only duty upon the property owner or tenant is to act within a reasonable time after notice to remove [the snow and ice] when it is in a dangerous condition.'"
Pointing to the 1996 case of Motter v. Meadows Ltd. Partnership, she added, "It is well-established that '[a]n independent contractor is in possession of the necessary area occupied by the work contemplated under the contract, and his responsibility replaces that of the owner who is, during the performance of the work by the contractor, out of possession and without control over the work or the premises.'"
Hare also argued that snow removal agreement between the property owner and Zaffino imposed a duty to remove snow at specific times and in specific amounts.
"it is undisputed that at the time of appellant's fall, the snow was continuing and had not accumulated to point that 'hills and ridges' had formed," Dubow said. "Also, since appellant has failed to establish that, under a theory of general negligence, the snow removal agreement imposed on appellee a duty to appellant, we are constrained to affirm the trial court's grant of the motion for summary judgment."
Hare had attempted to rely on the Superior Court's 2003 ruling in Biernacki v. Presque Isle Condominium Unit Owners Association for the argument that the property owner owed him a duty under the snow removal agreement. But Dubow said Biernacki was distinguishable because the court in that case found that the landlord owed a duty to the tenant under the lease agreement, to which they were both parties.
"In the instant case, appellant is not a party to the snow removal agreement and Biernacki does not address the duty of a party to a contract to a third party, let alone impose such a duty," Dubow said.
Timothy McNair of McNair Law Offices in Erie represents Hare and did not return a call seeking comment.
Bruce Decker of MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton in Erie represents Zaffino and did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readEckert Seamans Snags Reed Smith Global Financial Intelligence Director
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250