In Aaron Johnson v. Robin Harris-Dent, Civil Action No. 23-00,097, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County denied a Defense Motion for Summary Judgment on basis of the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine.
In within matter, Plaintiff Johnson alleged injuries from a slip-and-fall on black ice suffered while an invitee on Defendant’s property. Plaintiff further alleged that his fall occurred on Defendant’s elevated covered front porch near a connecting stairway. It was undisputed that on the day of the incident, a winter storm created icy conditions on and around Defendant’s property. It was also undisputed that at the time of incident, the storm had stopped briefly and it started to snow. A central claim by Plaintiff is that the snow was melting as it landed.
Defendant Harris-Dent moved for Summary Judgment and contended that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine, which provided that a defendant would not have a duty to remedy snow and ice conditions while a winter weather event was in progress. Further, Defendant posited Plaintiff’s assumption of risk by arguing that as Plaintiff frequently helped her with snow and ice removal, Plaintiff assumed the risk of slipping and falling because Plaintiff knew or should have known that the area near Defendants’ property was prone to slippery conditions. Plaintiff counter-argued that the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine was inapplicable because the incident did not occur while in the middle of snowing, and that the incident occurred on a specific, localized patch of ice on Defendant’s elevated covered porch.
In its contemplation, the Court noted the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine “clarified the duty of a possessor of land owes to third parties when there is a dangerous condition on the land caused by ice and snow, because ‘to require that one’s walks be always free of ice and snow would be to impose an impossible burden in view of the climatic conditions in this hemisphere.” The Court further articulated a plaintiff’s burden of proof imposed by the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine when claiming injuries due to a slip-and-fall on ice or snow: “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 traveling 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 plaintiff to fall.”
The Court noted that the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine could not apply where the injury resulted from fall on an “isolated, localized patch of ice as opposed to where there are general icy conditions due to recent or continuing inclement weather.” In the Summary Judgment record, the Court found evidence suggesting that general icy conditions also existed at the time of the fall.
Notwithstanding, the Court found that a genuine issue of material fact relating to the location of the fall precluded Summary Judgment. Plaintiff alleged that he fell four to five feet into the interior of Defendant’s covered porch, which consisted of a roof, three walls, and an awning. The Court reasoned that those protection afforded to landowners and possessors under the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine would not extend to falls sustained inside structures or partially open structures, and that the applicability of the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine turns on the exact location of fall, a question of fact the Court decisively reserved for a jury.
Pennsylvania practitioners should be advised that the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine functions more as a narrow exception moreso than as a brightline rule, as its applicability is highly fact-sensitive, and that it does not completely and evenly guard against liability on every inch of a landowner or possessor’s land.
