In the case of Collins v. Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation, 179 A.3d 69 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of Summary Judgment in favor of a defendant property owner and against an injured plaintiff on the basis that a property owner does not have a duty to remove snow from its property during a snow event.

In order to recover for a fall on an ice or snow covered surface, a plaintiff must show: (1) that snow and ice had accumulated on the property 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.

In Collins, the plaintiff first noticed that it was snowing at 8:30 a.m. on January 21, 2014. He admitted that a substantial amount of snow had accumulated on the ground prior to his fall and claimed that he walked with extreme caution in the parking lot given the dangerous condition. As he walked from his car to the building, he slipped and fell just after 1:30 p.m. that same day. Additionally, the plaintiff admitted that, from early morning that day until the time of his fall that afternoon, there was a blizzard occurring. As a result, the weather conditions shortly before and after the time of the incident were uncontested and the parties agreed that the plaintiff fell in the midst of an active blizzard. Therefore, the plaintiff offered no evidence from which a jury could conclude that a reasonable amount of time had elapsed between notice of a dangerous condition and the beginning of the duty to clear the parking lot.

In obtaining summary judgment at the trial court level, the prevailing defendant property owner relied upon the “hills and ridges doctrine”, which provides that a landowner has no duty to correct or take reasonable measures with regard to storm-created snowy or icy conditions until a reasonable time after the storm has ceased. 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 and the protection afforded by the doctrine is predicated on the assumption that the snow and ice formations are natural phenomena incidental to the climate.   There was no factual dispute that the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice/snow during an active blizzard; that is, at a time when “generally slippery conditions” prevailed in the community.   As a result, the plaintiff’s action against the defendant landowner was dismissed and on appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on the hills and ridges doctrine.

Property owners, including community associations, must use reasonable diligence in handling snow events, but, as demonstrated in Collins, the hills and ridges doctrine may insulate a property owner from liability if an injury occurs on the property during a snow event. The Collins opinion can be found here.