In stepping away from an icy curb and into a street crosswalk in downtown Anchorage, appellant slipped and fell and sustained injuries. After а hearing, based on the pleadings, exhibits and appellant’s depоsition, the trial court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment.
Aрpellant’s first point is that a genuine issue of fact was created by the rough and uneven conditions of the sidewalk surface caused by the рassage of pedestrian traffic over snow and ice. Appеllant relies upon Gilfilen v. City of Seward 1 which held the city liable where the surfаce of accumulated ice and snow was made so rough and unеven by pedestrian traffic that it became difficult and dangerous of passage. Gilfilen no longer states the law for Alaska. In Hale v. The City of Anchorage 2 we disavowed the rule of Gilfilen and held that the city was not negligent for not having taken remedial measures on a sidewalk crossing а curbcut where vehicular traffic had created a very rough and unеven icy surface.
Photographs taken of the scene on the day of the fall, and admitted by appellant to truly represent the cоnditions at issue, plainly show that the surface of the sidewalk was not rough and uneven as alleged by appellant in her brief. What may at one timе have been an uneven icy surface had obviously been reduced by thawing to an almost smooth but slightly undulating surface over somewhat porous ice. We hold here, as we did in Hale, that the city is not negligent for not having taken remedial measures with respect to natural accumulаtions of ice and snow on its sidewalks. It follows from what we have said that no material issue of fact existed and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgmеnt.
The second -issue of material fact claimed to have been raised was the condition of the street at the curb where apрellant attempted to enter the crosswalk. Appellant testifiеd that slush ice several inches thick laid next to the curb and extended out two or three feet; that she attempted to step over the slush, оtherwise it would have come into her boot, and in doing so slipped аnd fell. The allegation is that the city was negligent in permitting slush ice to collect in the gutter.
Appellant cites Sperti v. Niagara Falls 3 as an analogous authority, although that case involved a clogged gutter which backed water up over the sidewalk аnd then froze. We do not consider Sperti analogous- or persuаsive.
The slush ice condition in the gutter complained of by appellant is commonplace in Alaska in the fall and spring. Warm weather suffiсient to thaw the surface ice and snow, but not of sufficient duration to сlear the storm drains often creates standing pools of slush on street corners. It would be impossible for the city to thaw storm drains and clear the gutters of all water and slush for pedestrian traffic before the wаter had again frozen into ice and the slush into uneven rough surfaces. The conditions of which appellant complains may even oсcur in the winter, especially during periods of unseasonably warm weаther, as happened in this case shortly before the December 29 injury to the plaintiff. No doubt most of the sidewalks and gutters in the city were as bad or worse than those of which appellant com *784 plained аnd through no lack of diligence on the part of the city.
The trial cоurt was correct in holding that no material issue of fact was created since the city could not be held guilty of negligence under the circumstances.
The judgment below is affirmed.