.

Defense Digest

Dealing With Snow in Summer

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 2025

September 1, 2025

by Steven M. Sess

Key Points:

  • Landlords should ensure that their leases are clear regarding who has the responsibility for snow and ice removal. 
  • If a lease is ambiguous, the landlord could face liability should a slip and fall occur due to slippery conditions caused by snow and ice. 
  • The lease should indicate who has the responsibility for snow and ice removal, as well as specifically state what areas that responsibility applies to. 

When most people think about summer, thoughts of taking a trip to the beach, heading to the nearest amusement park, or cooking burgers on the grill likely come to mind. But if you are a landlord, you should take some time in the summer to prepare for the snow. Snow brings with it the potential for slippery conditions that could cause a slip and fall which could ultimately lead to being sued. Many landlords may feel that they do not need to be concerned about snow and ice because they believe that their leases address the responsibility for snow and ice removal, but that may not be the case if a lease does not sufficiently place this responsibility on the tenant. Here are some “blasts” of ice and snow from the past that illustrate this point and provide some present-day, summer guidance for landlords.

In Stuski v. Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, 162 A.3d 1196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania addressed premises liability in the context of a slip-and-fall incident, holding that a property owner leasing to the City was not liable because the lease clearly assigned maintenance duties, including snow and ice removal, to the tenant. The plaintiff, a City worker, slipped and fell in the parking lot where he parked his car. He brought a negligence action against the property owner, who was leasing the property to the City, which included the parking lot where the plaintiff fell. 

Pivotal to the landlord’s success was the fact the lease was clear regarding the duties of both parties. The lease clearly put the responsibility for snow and ice removal on the City and was specific as to the locations where the City was responsible for snow and ice removal. The lease was supported by email communications in which the City acknowledged that it would be responsible for snow and ice removal. There was also deposition testimony that only City workers were ever observed removing snow from the parking lot.

In deciding the case, the court noted that liability is not premised merely on ownership but, rather, on possession and control. When an owner leases out parts of a building, the landlord is responsible for those areas not specifically leased or in absence of a contrary provision in the lease. The court determined that the lease was clear regarding the City’s duty to remove snow and ice from the parking lot and that the property owner could not be held liable for the fall. 

The key for landlords is to make sure that their leases are not ambiguous regarding who is responsible for snow removal. For example, in Eisbacher v. Maytag Corporation, 2017 WL 947606 (Pa. Super. Mar. 9, 2017), the court determined there was a genuine question regarding who controlled an area and, therefore, who was responsible for the removal of snow and ice that caused an injury. 

The lease in Eisbacher made the landlord responsible for snow removal of the common areas, parking areas, loading areas, and roadways. A drawing was included in the lease that indicated what areas of the property were considered common areas. There was also a contract with a snow removal service. The incident in question involved a trailer drop lot, which was not indicated as a common area in the drawing that was included with the lease. The tenant of the property had the ability to move trailers in the drop lot. 

The court determined that it was unclear who had the authority to request that the snow removal company come to the property to plow. Since the lease was not clear on who had control of the drop lot and the responsibility for ensuring snow and ice were removed from that lot, the court determined that it was ultimately up to the jury to determine who had control over the drop lot; therefore, neither the landlord nor the tenant could escape potential liability. 

In Schouppe v. Upright, 2019 WL 6701763 (Pa. Super. Dec. 9, 2019), the court again addressed whether a lease was ambiguous regarding who had the responsibility for snow and ice removal. Therein, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a patch of snow and ice on land that was leased to a post office. The lease provided a detailed list of the areas that the post office agreed to furnish and pay for snow removal. The lease made the landlord responsible for snow removal for the roof, as well as maintenance and repair of all common areas. The plaintiff claimed that the lease could not be used to shield the landlord from liability because the landlord had the responsibility for maintenance and repair of the area where the fall occurred. 

The court determined that the lease was clear regarding the post office’s responsibility for snow and ice removal where the fall occurred. While the landlord had the responsibility for repairs, there was not a dangerous condition prior to the post office’s taking possession of the property. Once again, the clarity of the lease prevented the landlord from being liable for an injury caused by snow and ice when the tenant was responsible for their removal. 

A lease is an important document that should provide both parties with a clear picture of their rights and responsibilities. If the intent of the lease is for the tenant to be responsible for the removal of snow and ice, the lease should clearly indicate that. Thus, should an accident occur due to the tenant’s negligence in failing to properly remove the snow and ice, the landlord will not face potential liability due to ambiguity in the lease. 

While dealing with snow in the summer may not be the first thing a landlord may think about, it could prevent issues when the snow falls in the winter. 

Steven is a member of our Casualty Department. He can be reached at (717) 651-3527 or SMSess@mdwcg.com. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.