Gamble v. Beck, 44 Pa. D. & C.5th 160

On Dec. 26, 2012 Lenora Gamble slipped on a distinct patch of ice in a parking lot serving a strip mall at 60 W. Southern Ave.; she intended to shop at the Tyndale Factory Store.
The strip mall is owned by Dennis P. and Christine A. Beck (landlords); Tyndale Enterprises, Inc. (tenant) leased the premises on or about June 1, 2012.
The lease assigned exterior/common-area maintenance (including the parking lot) to the landlords; landlords sometimes salted the lot and relied on an adjacent owner to clear/salt as needed.
At the time of the fall the Tyndale store manager (Lisa Klein) had not salted the lot; she began salting customer walkways only after the incident.
Plaintiffs presented evidence of sunny weather with no precipitation for ~34 hours before the fall and that the hazard was a distinct patch of ice large enough for multiple people.
Procedural: Tyndale moved for summary judgment (duty issue); the Becks moved for summary judgment invoking the hills-and-ridges doctrine. Court granted Tyndale’s motion and denied the Becks’ motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tyndale (tenant) owed a duty to maintain the parking lot/common area	Gamble: tenant (through manager) undertook salting/maintenance so owed duty	Tyndale: lease assigned exterior duty to landlords; no undertaking existed before the fall	Court: No duty — summary judgment for Tyndale (no evidence of a prior, specific undertaking or reliance)
Whether hills-and-ridges doctrine bars landlord liability	Gamble: fall was on a distinct patch of ice (not general slippery condition) so doctrine not applicable	Becks: doctrine applies, insulating them from liability for icy conditions	Court: Doctrine inapplicable — evidence showed a distinct patch of ice, so Becks’ summary judgment denied

Leary v. Lawrence Sales Corp., 275 A.2d 32 (Pa. 1971) (landlord generally liable for common areas absent contrary lease provision)
Cantwell v. Allegheny County, 483 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1984) (applying Restatement §324A negligent-undertaking principles)
Morin v. Traveler's Rest Motel, Inc., 704 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 1997) (tenants’ salting did not create duty where no reliance or increased hazard shown)
Tonik v. Apex Garages, Inc., 275 A.2d 296 (Pa. 1971) (hills-and-ridges doctrine applies to general slippery conditions from recent precipitation, not distinct ice patches)
Williams v. Shultz, 240 A.2d 812 (Pa. 1968) (distinguishing distinct ice patches from general accumulation covered by hills-and-ridges)
Harmotta v. Bender, 601 A.2d 837 (Pa. 1992) (discussing scope of hills-and-ridges protection)
Keystone Freight Corp. v. Stricker, 31 A.3d 967 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (summary-judgment standard)
Young v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 744 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 2000) (summary-judgment burden where non-moving party must produce evidence)
Patentas v. United States, 687 F.2d 707 (3d Cir. 1982) (scope-of-undertaking principles)
Evans v. Otis Elevator Co., 168 A.2d 573 (Pa. 1961) (application of negligent-undertaking theory)