Slip and Fall on Ice and Snow – The "Hills and Ridges Doctrine"

The Hills and Ridges Doctrine provides protection to persons who control property where a slip and fall occurs 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.

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

One in possession of land is obliged to remove the ice and snow that has accumulated on the public road [sidewalk] [walking surface] adjoining your property within a reasonable time after being notified 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 obstructed travel and were a hazard to persons riding on the sidewalk;

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

Third, that it was the dangerous accumulation of ice and snow that caused the plaintiff to fall.

The first “essential” in the Standard Jury Instruction is commonly known as the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine. The Doctrine protects the owner or occupant of the land from liability for “generally slippery conditions resulting from ice and snow where the owner has failed to unreasonably allow the ice and snow to accumulate 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 the occupant of land should not be held responsible for overall slippery conditions, since requiring trails to always be clear of ice and snow would impose an impossible burden in light of Pennsylvania’s climatic conditions. Wentzv. Pennswood Apts., 518 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. 1986).

However, there are limits to the applicability of the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine. The Doctrine can be applied only in cases where the snow and ice complained of is the result of completely natural accumulation after a recent weather event, because the protection granted by the Doctrine is based on the assumption that these formations are incidental natural phenomena to our climate. sick vs. Barnes, 341 A.2d 157 (Pa. Super. 1975). As such, where ice and/or snow are localized and there are generally no slippery conditions in the community or where a slippery condition is caused by a man-made condition rather than a recent weather event, the Doctrine is inapplicable. For example, icy conditions resulting from melting and refreezing of snow and ice in lieu of a recent storm would not be subject to the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine. Similarly, icy conditions resulting from a faulty water pipe or 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 High Court held that the Hills and Ridges Doctrine would not apply when Ms. Harvey fell on a road that had recently been plowed and appeared be clear and dry, but actually had black ice. The High Court found that the trial court’s granting of a non-claim based on the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine was inappropriate because the condition of the land was “influenced by human intervention”, i.e., the removal of snow, so the ice was not the result of a completely natural accumulation. ID in 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 Ridges Doctrine to determine whether or not the defense applies.