Slip and Fall on Ice and Snow: The "Hills and ridges doctrine"

The “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine provides protection to persons controlling property from a slip and fall on ice or snow. However, there is confusion as to the applicability of this defense, which is only available when the fall is caused by a natural accumulation of ice or snow.

Pennsylvania Standard Civil Jury Instruction 7.04, titled Owner / Occupant Duty of Care (Ice or Snow on Adjoining Public Sidewalks or Walking Surfaces) states the following:

Someone in possession of the land is required to remove ice and snow that has accumulated in the public [sidewalk] [walking surface] adjoining your property within a reasonable time after he or she receives notice that a dangerous condition exists. To establish liability on the owner, the plaintiff must prove that each of the following three essential elements was present:

First, that ice and snow had accumulated on the [sidewalk] [walking surface] on ridges or elevations that unreasonably obstruct travel and are a hazard to people traveling on the road;

Second, that the defendant property owner knew or should have known of the existence of such conditions;

Third, it was the dangerous accumulation of ice and snow that caused the plaintiff’s downfall.

The first “essential” in the Standard Jury Instruction is commonly known as the “Hills and Crests” Doctrine. The Doctrine protects the owner or occupant of the land from liability for “generally slippery conditions resulting from ice and snow in which the owner has not allowed ice and snow to accumulate unreasonably on ridges or elevations.” Morin v. Traveler’s Rest Motel, Inc., 704 A.2d 1085, 1087 (Pa. Super. 1997). The rationale for the Doctrine is that a land possessor should not be held liable for general slippery conditions, as requiring that one’s aisles always be free of ice and snow would impose an impossible burden in view of Pennsylvania weather conditions. Wentz v. Pennswood Apts., 518 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. 1986).

However, there are limits to the applicability of the “Hills and Ridge” Doctrine. The Doctrine can be applied only in cases where the snow and ice they complain about are the result of a completely natural accumulation after a recent meteorological event, because the protection provided by the Doctrine is based on the assumption that these formations are natural phenomena incidental to our climate. Bacsick v. Barnes, 341 A.2d 157 (Pa. Super. 1975). As such, where ice and / or snow are localized and there are no slippery conditions in the community or when a slippery condition is caused by an artificial condition rather than a recent meteorological event, the Doctrine is inapplicable. For example, icy conditions resulting from the melting and freezing of snow and ice rather than a recent storm would not be subject to the “Hills and Ridge” Doctrine. Similarly, icy conditions resulting from a faulty water pipe or a leaking gutter would not be covered by the Doctrine.

In the recent case of Harvey v. Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd., 901 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 2006), the Superior Court held that the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine would not apply when Ms. Harvey fell on a road that had recently been plowed and It appeared to be clear and dry, but it actually had black ice on it. The High Court found that the fact that the trial court granted a non-claim based on the “Hills and Ridge” Doctrine was inappropriate because the condition of the land was “influenced by human intervention”, that is, the snow plow, so the ice was not the result of an entirely natural build-up. Id. At 527.

When pursuing or defending a slip and fall case involving ice or snow, it is critical to properly understand and analyze the “Hills and Ridge” Doctrine to determine whether or not the defense applies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *