Neifert, G. v. Speedway LLC and Tracey R. Correll, 1891 MDA 2016

Plaintiff Gregory Neifert slipped on ice in the parking lot of a convenience store on December 7, 2012, suffered head injuries, and sued the store (predecessor to Speedway LLC) and its manager Tracey Correll for negligence.
Witnesses agreed precipitation occurred that morning which froze on contact, creating icy conditions; EMS and bystanders described widespread ice/people sliding in the lot.
Store employee on duty said the lot was wet (no ice) upon arrival ~7:00 a.m.; after the fall she and manager Correll responded, observed thin patches of black ice, and applied ice melt within about 30 minutes of learning of the incident.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the “hills and ridges” doctrine bars liability for natural, generally slippery snow/ice conditions and that they lacked actual or constructive notice of any dangerous ridges.
Trial court granted summary judgment; Superior Court affirmed, concluding (1) general slippery conditions prevailed (so hills-and-ridges doctrine applies) and (2) plaintiff produced no evidence of accumulations in ridges/elevations or of defendant notice sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of hills-and-ridges doctrine	Neifert: factual disputes about weather/source of ice show no general slippery conditions, so doctrine inapplicable	Defendants: precipitation froze creating general slippery conditions in community; doctrine bars recovery	Held: Doctrine applies—record shows general icy conditions at time of fall
Was the ice an isolated patch vs. general accumulation	Neifert: disputed testimony; claimed fall was on isolated patch, not general ice	Defendants: evidence (EMS/bystanders) showed multiple slippery spots and community-wide icing	Held: No genuine dispute that multiple icy areas existed; not limited to single isolated patch
Actual or constructive notice of hazardous condition	Neifert: employees had walked lot earlier and ice existed for hours; defendants removed ice elsewhere but not where he fell—creates issue for jury	Defendants: no notice prior to fall; ice formed rapidly between plaintiff’s entry and exit; they responded promptly after learning	Held: Plaintiff failed to produce evidence of prior notice or unreasonable delay; summary judgment proper
Causation via non-precipitation source of ice	Neifert: ice may have come from other source (not just precipitation) raising factual dispute	Defendants: all witnesses tied ice to precipitation that morning; no evidence of alternate source	Held: No evidentiary support for alternate source theory; court accepted precipitation as source

Krapf v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 4 A.3d 642 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
Merlini ex rel. Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Auth., 980 A.2d 502 (Pa. 2009) (elements of negligence claim)
Estate of Swift v. Ne. Hosp. of Phila., 690 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. 1997) (notice element required to impose liability for water/ice hazards)
Myers v. Penn Traffic Co., 606 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. 1992) (mere existence of harmful condition does not alone establish proprietor’s breach)
Rinaldi v. Levine, 176 A.2d 623 (Pa. 1962) (no absolute duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow; hills-and-ridges doctrine described)
Morin v. Traveler’s Rest Motel, Inc., 704 A.2d 1085 (Pa. Super. 1997) (elements and scope of hills-and-ridges doctrine)
Tonik v. Apex Garages, Inc., 275 A.2d 296 (Pa. 1971) (hills-and-ridges required when general slippery conditions prevail)
Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2006) (summary judgment review principles)
Overly v. Kass, 554 A.2d 970 (Pa. Super. 1989) (procedural limits on facts considered in summary judgment)
Wilson v. Howard Johnson Rest., 219 A.2d 676 (Pa. 1966) (hills-and-ridges doctrine bars recovery for smooth wet ice absent hazardous ridges)