In this slip-and-fall case, questions of fact regarding defendant's duty to plow under its snow-removal contract and prior practice made summary judgment inappropriate and questions as to whether ice in the parking lot had accumulated from natural causes precluded summary judgment under the hills and ridges doctrine. Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied.
March 27, 2016 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Slips and Falls • Negligence • Hills-and-Ridges Doctrine • Summary Judgment
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
The Court of Appeal, First Appellate District in San Francisco is accepting applications for a full-time regular Judicial Secretary I, Judic...
The County is looking for a skilled and seasoned County Attorney to oversee the Law Department in delivering top-tier legal services, repres...
Position Summary: The Corporate General Counsel will manage and coordinate all legal and compliance matters affecting the company. The Gen...
