Slip and Falls on Ice and Snow: The “Hills and Ridges Doctrine”

The “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine provides protection to persons in control of property where a slip and fall on ice or snow occurs. 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, entitled Owner/Occupant Duty of Care (Ice or Snow on Adjacent 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 public roads [sidewalk] [walking surface] abutting 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 people riding on the sidewalk;

Second, that the owner of the defendant 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 when the owner has not permitted 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 the owner of a piece of land should not be responsible for general slippery conditions, since requiring trails to always be free of ice and snow would impose an impossible burden in light of Pennsylvania’s weather 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 complained of snow and ice are the result of a completely natural accumulation after a recent weather event, because the protection afforded by the Doctrine is based on the assumption that these formations are natural phenomena incidental to our climate. sick v. Barnes, 341 A.2d 157 (Pa. Super. 1975). As such, where ice and/or snow is localized and there are generally no slippery conditions in the community or where a slippery condition is caused by an artificial condition rather than a recent weather event, the Doctrine is inapplicable. For example, icy conditions resulting from melting and refreezing of snow and ice rather than 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 Superior Court held that the “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine would not apply when Mrs. Harvey fell on a road that had been recently plowed and appeared be clear and dry, but it actually had black ice. The High Court found that the trial court’s award 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.