179 A.3d 69
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- On Jan. 21, 2014, David Collins slipped on ice/snow on a PSDC‑owned sidewalk during an active blizzard; he and his wife sued PSDC and others for negligence and loss of consortium.
- Discovery showed Collins knew it was snowing from about 8:30 a.m. and fell between ~1:30–2:00 p.m. while the blizzard was ongoing; security video corroborated active snowfall.
- PSDC moved for summary judgment arguing the hills‑and‑ridges doctrine bars liability for natural accumulations of ice/snow during a storm.
- Appellants argued exceptions applied: (1) PSDC negligently failed to pretreat the sidewalk before the forecasted storm; (2) PSDC’s failure to reduce its contract to writing/preseason inspection constituted negligence; and (3) a hidden defective ramp under the snow contributed to the fall.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for PSDC; arbitration proceeded as to remaining defendants and produced awards against them. Appellants appealed the grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of hills‑and‑ridges doctrine | Collins: natural accumulation exception does not apply because PSDC negligently failed to pretreat/contract/impose safety measures | PSDC: fall occurred during an active blizzard; doctrine bars liability for natural storm accumulations until a reasonable time after storm ends | Doctrine applies; summary judgment for PSDC affirmed |
| Neglect‑based exception (failure to pretreat) | PSDC had duty to pretreat for forecasted storm; expert said pretreatment would have reduced risk | No general duty to pretreat before or during a storm; precedent disfavors imposing such affirmative duty | Exception not met; no duty to pretreat shown |
| Contract/selection/oversight of independent contractor | Collins: PSDC should have formalized/inspected/regulated Ross’s work per industry standards | PSDC: oral contracts valid; even if contractor, no duty to remove during active storm; trial court didn’t need to reach this argument | Not reached substantively; hills‑and‑ridges dispositive; exception not established |
| Hidden defective condition (ramp under snow) | Collins: ramp hidden by snow may have caused fall, creating triable issue | PSDC: no developed argument in opposition on appeal | Issue waived for inadequate development on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Biernacki v. Presque Isle Condominiums Unit Owners Ass’n, Inc., 828 A.2d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2003) (explains hills‑and‑ridges doctrine and that owner must act within a reasonable time after notice to remove dangerous accumulations)
- Wentz v. Pennswood Apartments, 518 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. 1986) (defines doctrine as applying to natural accumulations of ice and snow)
- Williams v. Shultz, 240 A.2d 812 (Pa. 1968) (recognizes hills‑and‑ridges protection where slippery conditions result from recent precipitation)
- Harmotta v. Bender, 601 A.2d 837 (Pa. Super. 1992) (acknowledges exceptions where icy conditions are caused by defendant’s neglect)
- Morin v. Traveler’s Rest Motel, Inc., 704 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 1997) (holds no duty to salt or sand during/immediately after an ice storm)