Thought Leadership

Key Points:

• The Middle District Court affirms the viability of the “hills and ridges” doctrine in Pennsylvania. 
• The Middle District Court provides insight into the factual inquiries necessary to reap the benefits of this longstanding doctrine.

The “hills and ridges” doctrine is a long-standing and well-entrenched legal principle in Pennsylvania 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. Convery v. Prussia Associates, 2000 WL 233243, at *1 (E.D. Pa Mar. 1, 2000) (quoting Morin v. Traveler’s Rest Motel, Inc., 704 A.2d 1085, 1087 (Pa. Super. 1997)). Oftentimes, the factual inquiry to determine the applicability of this doctrine is whether the ice and snow were permitted to unreasonably accumulate. In other words, the factfinder must first determine how long the ice and snow were permitted to remain on the land once the icy or snowy weather conditions subsided, and whether that time was reasonable. 

A concurrent and lesser-known factual inquiry is whether the slippery condition resulted from ice and snow. For this inquiry, the factfinder must determine whether the snow and ice on the land was related to an entirely natural accumulation or whether it was influenced by human intervention. It is based on this latter inquiry that the court denied the summary judgment motions of the defendant landowners and the defendant snow remediation contractor in the very recent personal injury action. Sanner v. Airbnb, Inc., et. al., 2024 WL 1356693 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2024). 

Therein, the facts taken in favor of the plaintiff established that the plaintiff, Ms. Sanner, and her friends secured the short-term rental of Elona and Xhemali Lopari's property via Airbnb. When Sanner arrived on February 5th, there were patches of ice on the driveway. On February 6th, when she arrived back from snow tubing, there were patches of ice on the driveway that she was aware of and could avoid. On February 7th, the date her friends were scheduled to depart from the property, during heavy snow, Sanner went outside to assist her two friends in clearing snow from their cars. Sanner recalled that the driveway was covered in snow when she fell. Sanner did not inspect what caused her to fall or observe ice on the driveway on February 7th. The Loparis had a verbal contract with the defendant Harry Amato to perform ice and snow removal services at the subject property. 

In finding that a genuine issue of material fact remained, thus defeating summary judgment, the court acknowledged the possible applicability of the hills and ridges doctrine during a snowstorm but noted that the doctrine does not apply to localized patches of ice or circumstances when the icy condition is created by human intervention. Sanner, 2024 WL 1356693, at *4 (quoting Williams v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 121, 123 (E.D. Pa. 1981). The court explained that the doctrine only applies to situations where the ice is the result of an entirely natural accumulation. While the fact that it was snowing heavily on the day of Sanner’s fall indicated that the hills and ridges doctrine could be applicable, Amato’s role in previously clearing the driveway raised a question as to whether the driveway’s condition on February 7th was influenced by human intervention. The parties had not provided definitive evidence establishing either that Sanner fell on ice that existed prior to February 7th, or because of new icy conditions caused by the morning storm, or even because of new icy conditions caused by the clearing of the snow from the two vehicles. In Sanner, the possibility of a causal link between the human intervention causing the hazardous condition created enough of an issue of material fact to defeat the defendants’ motions. 

The question now remains for both the plaintiff and the defendants: How will they specifically identify whether the icy and snowy conditions originated artificially or naturally? Stay tuned. 

Taniesha is a member of the Casualty Department and works in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office. 

_{Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 3, September 2024, 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. © 2024 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.}