hills and ridges doctrine in Pennsylvania

2023The hills and ridges doctrine “protects an owner or occupier of land from liability for generally slippery conditions resulting from ice and snow where the owner has not permitted the ice and snow to unreasonably accumulate in ridges or elevations.” Morin v. Traveler’s Rest Motel, Inc., 704 A.2d 1085, 1087 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citation omitted). “[T]he protection afforded by the doctrine is predicated on the assumption that these formations are natural phenomena incidental to our climate.” Collins, 179 A.3d at 74 (citation, brackets, and quotation marks omitted).

2022Specifically, we find the hills and ridges doctrine applicable to the case sub judice and, in particular, pursuant to the doctrine we find no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Hupp can be held liable for Appellant’s injuries. -6- J-S35010-21 Pennsylvania courts created an exception to liability known as the hills and ridges doctrine that “is a refinement [of] or clarification of the duty owed by a [land] possessor and is applicable to a single type of dangerous condition, i.e., ice and snow.” Morin v. Traveler’s Rest Motel, Inc., 704 A.2d 1085, 1087 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citatio

2022To overcome the hills and ridges doctrine and permit recovery for a fall on an ice or snow covered surface, a plaintiff must show: (1) that snow and ice [] accumulated on the [surface] in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians travelling thereon; (2) that the property owner had notice, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such condition; and (3) that it was the dangerous accumulation of snow and ice which caused the plaintiff to fall. -7- J-S35010-21 This Court [] further opined that “the only duty

2019Judge Bowes concurs in the result. ____________________________________________ 9 The doctrine of hills and ridges is “a long standing and well entrenched legal principle that protects an owner or occupier of land from liability for generally slippery conditions resulting from ice and snow where the owner has not permitted the ice and snow to unreasonably accumulate in ridges or elevations.” Biernacki v. Presque Isle Condominiums Unit Owners Ass’n, Inc., 828 A.2d 1114, 1116 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). -8- J-S80002-18 Judgment Entered.

2026Accordingly, the hills and ridges doctrine applies and precludes Iliuk from recovery here. 6 See Collins, 179 A.3d at 74 .

2026Collins, 179 A.3d at 73–74 (emphasis added). -7- J-A25003-25 Here, we agree with the trial court’s analysis and application of the hills and ridges doctrine.

2026As this Court has held, “the hills and ridges doctrine may be applied only in cases where the snow and ice complained of are the result of an entirely natural accumulation following a recent snowfall[.]” Harvey v. Rouse Chamberin, Ltd., 901 A.2d 523, 526 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quotation marks, quotation, and emphasis omitted[)].

2026The hills and ridges doctrine protects an owner or occupier of land from liability for generally slippery conditions resulting from ice and snow where the owner has not permitted the ice and snow to unreasonably accumulate in ridges or elevations. -2- J-A25003-25 Harvey v. Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd., 901 A.2d 523, 526 (Pa.Super. 2006) (cleaned up).

2026An invitee must present evidence proving “either the [possessor] of the land had a hand in creating the harmful condition, or he had actual or constructive notice of such condition.” Id. . . . -6- J-A25003-25 The hills and ridges doctrine, “as defined and applied by the courts of Pennsylvania, is a refinement or clarification of the duty owed by a possessor of land and is applicable to a single type of dangerous condition, i.e., ice and snow.” Wentz v. Pennswood Apartments, [] 518 A.2d 314, 316 ([Pa. Super.] 1986).

2025The hills and ridges doctrine, in turn, “is a refinement or clarification of the duty owed by a possessor of land and is applicable to a single type of dangerous condition, i.e., ice and snow.” Id. (quoting Wentz v. Pennswood Apartments, 518 A.2d 314, 316 (Pa. Super. 1986)).

2018Plaintiff-Appellant only cites to one case, Williams v. Schultz, 240 A.2d 812 (Pa. 1967), on the issue of generally slippery conditions under the hills-and-ridges doctrine in her Response, which is found in her New Matter, ,i32.

2018Appellant contends that an exception to the hills and ridges doctrine was recognized in Williams v. Shultz, 240 A.2d 812, 813-14 (Pa. 1968), and applies in this case.

2024It must appear that there were dangerous conditions due to ridges or elevations which were allowed to -6- J-A16002-24 remain for an unreasonable length of time, or were created by defendant’s antecedent negligence.” Id. [The Superior Court of Pennsylvania] has summarized “the doctrine of hills and ridges” as follows: This doctrine provides that an owner or occupier of land is not liable for general slippery conditions, for 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.

2005The Supreme Court set forth what a plaintiff must prove under the hills and ridges doctrine in Rinaldi v. Levine, 406 Pa. 74 , 176 A.2d 623 (1962): “Where a property owner is charged with negligence in permitting the accumulation of snow or ice on his sidewalk, the proof necessary to sustain such a charge has been clearly defined by our decisional law.

2020The hills-and-ridges doctrine is not applicable in all situations involving snow and ice, and “is subject to a number of [] significant exceptions.” Harmotta, 601 A.2d at 841-42 .

2018While we agree with Appellants that this Court has recognized various exceptions to the hills and ridges doctrine, including that "proof of hills and ridges [is not] required when an icy condition is caused by the defendant's neglect," 6 Harmotta v. Bender , 411 Pa.Super. 371 , 601 A.2d 837 , 842 (1992) (citations omitted), we disagree that PSDC's failure to pretreat the sidewalk falls within this exception.

2023In Tonik, our Supreme Court held that the hills and ridges doctrine did not apply because the “accident [must have] occurred at a time when general slippery conditions prevailed in the community, which is not the case here.” 275 A.2d at 298 (emphasis added).

2020In order to overcome the hills and ridges doctrine, [Appellants] must establish all three elements under the hills and ridges doctrine, including the first element - "that snow and ice [] accumulated on the [parking lot surface] in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians travelling thereon." Id.

2023See, e.g., Heasley v. Carter Lumber, 843 A.2d 1274, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining that the hills and ridges doctrine “was intended to protect property owners from the undue burden of ensuring that open spaces such as sidewalks and parking lots are constantly kept clear of snow and ice” (emphasis added)); Gilligan v. Villanova University, 584 A.2d 1005, 1007-08 (Pa. Super. 1991) (concluding that the defendant university was not liable when the plaintiff departed from a sidewalk and fell on a snow-covered grassy area of the campus because requiring a landowner to clear snow and ice from the

2023See Trial Ct. Op., 3/31/22, at 4-5; see also Collins, 179 A.3d at 74-75 (explaining that under the hills and ridges doctrine, an owner or possessor of land is not liable when “the accident occurred at a time when general slippery conditions prevailed in the community as a result of recent precipitation”, and further that an owner or possessor of land has no duty to remove ice and snow “until a reasonable time after the winter storm has ended” (citations and quotation marks omitted)); Gilligan, 584 A.2d at 1007-08 (concluding that the defendant was not liable when the plaintiff departed from a

2019Although the existence of a snow bank can render the hills and ridges doctrine inapplicable, see, e.g., Bacsick v. Barnes, 341 A.2d 157, 160 (Pa. Super. 1975), Alison stated she was in the middle of the road when she fell.

1998In Bacsick v. Barnes, 234 Pa. Super. 616 , 341 A.2d 157 (1975), the Superior Court held that the doctrine of hills and ridges may only be applied “in cases where the snow and ice complained of are the result of an entirely natural accumulation, following a recent snowfall.” Id. at 621 , 341 A.2d at 160 .

2019Our Supreme Court affirmed, stating: In the absence of any direct proof as to the manner in which the accident occurred, the burden was on appellant to produce 9 We conclude that the grant of summary judgment is independently supported by the well-settled hills and ridges doctrine, which, as defined and applied by the courts of Pennsylvania, “is a refinement or clarification of the duty owed by a possessor of land and is applicable to a single type of dangerous condition, i.e., ice and snow.” Moon v. Dauphin County, 129 A.3d 16, 22 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (quoting Morin v. Traveler’s Rest Motel, In

2019The hills and ridges doctrine “protects an owner or occupier of land from liability for generally slippery conditions resulting from ice and snow where the owner has not permitted the ice and snow to unreasonably accumulate in ridges or elevations.” Moon, 129 A.3d at 22 -23 (quoting Morin, 704 A.2d at 1087 ).

2020Alexander v. City of Meadville, 61 A.3d 218 , 221–22 (Pa. Super. 2012); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 342. -5- J-A01031-20 In Pennsylvania, courts have created the hills and ridges doctrine, to refine and clarify the duty owed by a possessor of land applicable when the dangerous condition is ice and snow.

2018See Alexander , supra (explaining the hills and ridges doctrine).

1998The hills and ridges doctrine requires a plaintiff to prove, “(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 travelling thereon; (2) that the property owner had notice, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such condition; [and] (3) that it was the dangerous accumulation of snow and ice which caused the plaintiff to fall.” Giosa v. School District of Phila delphia, 127 Pa. Commw. 537, 540-41 , 562 A.2d 411, 413 (1989); Wentz, 359 Pa. Super. at 5 , 518

1998The hills and ridges doctrine requires a plaintiff to prove, “(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 travelling thereon; (2) that the property owner had notice, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such condition; [and] (3) that it was the dangerous accumulation of snow and ice which caused the plaintiff to fall.” Giosa v. School District of Phila delphia, 127 Pa. Commw. 537, 540-41 , 562 A.2d 411, 413 (1989); Wentz, 359 Pa. Super. at 5 , 518

2023See, e.g., Heasley v. Carter Lumber, 843 A.2d 1274, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining that the hills and ridges doctrine “was intended to protect property owners from the undue burden of ensuring that open spaces such as sidewalks and parking lots are constantly kept clear of snow and ice” (emphasis added)); Gilligan v. Villanova University, 584 A.2d 1005, 1007-08 (Pa. Super. 1991) (concluding that the defendant university was not liable when the plaintiff departed from a sidewalk and fell on a snow-covered grassy area of the campus because requiring a landowner to clear snow and ice from the

2021See Roland, 513 A.2d at 1032 (affirming summary judgment because there was “no indication that there was a dangerous condition on the land.

2021See Rohrer, supra. Regarding the application of the hills and ridges doctrine, Appellant testified about the snow-covered driveway where she fell, claiming that “under [the] snow it was hard, ice….” (N.T.

2021See Mee, supra; Miller, supra. Consequently, we affirm the order granting summary judgment.

2021Payne v. Commonwealth Department of Corrections, 871 A.2d 795, 800 (Pa. 2005) (citations omitted). -4- J-S18019-21 First, we note that the Clauses focus their argument on the facts and the trial court’s application of the hills and ridges doctrine in granting defense summary judgment motions.

2021See Chenot, supra. Based upon the foregoing, we do not agree with the court’s conclusion that the hills and ridges doctrine shielded Appellees from liability in this matter.

2020Pledger by Pledger v. Janssen Pharm., Inc., 198 A.3d 1126, 1146 (Pa. Super. 2018). “[W]e are mindful that a trial court is bound to charge only on that law for which there is some factual support in the record.” Levey v. DeNardo, 725 A.2d 733, 735 (Pa. 1999) (citation omitted). - 15 - J-A04019-20 During its instruction to the jury, the trial court read Pennsylvania Standard Civil Jury Instruction 18.90, Owner Occupier’s Duty of Care (Ice or Snow on Abutting Public Sidewalk or Walking Surface), which is known colloquially as the hills-and-ridges doctrine.

2020Pledger by Pledger v. Janssen Pharm., Inc., 198 A.3d 1126, 1146 (Pa. Super. 2018). “[W]e are mindful that a trial court is bound to charge only on that law for which there is some factual support in the record.” Levey v. DeNardo, 725 A.2d 733, 735 (Pa. 1999) (citation omitted). - 15 - J-A04019-20 During its instruction to the jury, the trial court read Pennsylvania Standard Civil Jury Instruction 18.90, Owner Occupier’s Duty of Care (Ice or Snow on Abutting Public Sidewalk or Walking Surface), which is known colloquially as the hills-and-ridges doctrine.

2020Based on the “background of the evidence in the particular case,” see Pledger, 198 A.3d at 1146 , we do not agree with Hanover.

2018Furthermore, our Supreme Court has recognized that Restatement Section 323 “does not . . . change the burden of a plaintiff to establish the underlying elements of an action in negligence, nor can it be invoked to create a duty where one does not exist.” Morena v. S. Hills Health Sys., 462 A.2d 680, 684 (Pa. 1983) (emphasis added).

2017Moreover, viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to Neifert, there is no support for his controverted supposition that “Defendants [had] removed [] ice from other parts of [the parking lot,] with the exception of the [area in which Neifert fell, o]r the ice at issue came from something other than precipitation.” Brief for Appellant at 18; see also Overly, supra. Finally, Neifert failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim that the ice that formed on the parking lot was caused by a source other than the precipitation that fell on the morning of December 7, 2012, whi

2017See Trial Court Opinion, 1/9/17, at 7; see also Wilson v. Howard Johnson Rest., 219 A.2d 676, 678 (Pa. 1966) (where the plaintiff truck driver had slipped on a sheet of smooth, wet ice in the parking lot of defendant restaurant, holding that defendant was insulated from liability by the hills and ridges doctrine, where the plaintiff’s own testimony established that “the cause of his fall was wet, slippery ice, devoid of any obstructions or ridges or elevations allowed to remain for an unreasonable length of time”).