Can You Sue a Homeowner for Unshoveled Sidewalks in Pennsylvania?

Throughout most of the United States, the property owner – not the city or local municipality – is responsible for keeping their sidewalk safe. This means keeping leaves from accumulating, repairing uneven pavement, or clearing snow and ice. Icy sidewalks are a common problem in the winter, and homeowners are often responsible for any injuries their icy sidewalks cause. If you or a loved one fell on an icy sidewalk in PA, take your case to the Philadelphia slip and fall lawyers at The Reiff Law Firm, today.

Suing for a Fall on a Snowy or Icy Sidewalk in Philadelphia

In many cases, a snowy sidewalk is just as slippery as an icy sidewalk. Loosely-packed snow can be a slipping hazard, especially for injured or elderly people who have a harder time getting around. If the snow is left there for too long, it can melt, refreeze, and harden into packed ice. This can be not only a hard, physical obstacle that risks tripping and falling, but also a slipping hazard. You can often sue for damages after a fall on an icy sidewalk.

In some towns and cities, there are specific rules for shoveling your sidewalk. These laws may come with fines and tickets to help enforce the rule, enhancing the overall safety of the community. Since these rules are in place to keep others safe, breaking this rule may be enough to prove negligence in a personal injury lawsuit.

For example, Philadelphia Code 10-720 requires removing snow within 6 hours after the snow has stopped falling. It requires you to clear a 36” wide path. The rule also allows the building owner or tenant to be held responsible for violations. For multifamily homes (e.g. apartment buildings), it is the owner’s responsibility to have the sidewalk cleared.

Rules like this may help define the specific duty the building owner must fulfil. Without a statute on point, the general duty may be far less strict. The building owner may only need to clear a reasonably sized walkway that is reasonably clear of ice and debris. This rule may not be as strict as Philly’s rule, but it may still allow many victims to hold the negligent building owner responsible for accidents their icy sidewalks cause. It may be stricter in other ways, such as the timing element. Where Philly’s law gives the owner 6 hours after the snow stops falling, the general duty may require them to clear the sidewalk while snow is still coming down, or in a more prompt timeframe.

Determining the specific duty in light of the specifics of your case is often a large part of these kinds of injury lawsuits. Factors like the weather conditions, the effectiveness of de-icing techniques (e.g. salting the sidewalk), the number of times the snow was cleared before the fall, and other factors may influence the court’s ruling.

What Actions Does Pennsylvania Require a Landowner to Take?

Perhaps the best way to understand the actions that the law requires a Pennsylvania landowner to take when generally slippery conditions, like those after a snowfall, are present is by working backward from the instructions that can be provided to the jury. In the 1992 case, Marmotta v. Bender, the trial court instructed the jury that in order for the plaintiff to establish that  landowner liability applied when generally slippery conditions were present, the plaintiff would need to prove “that the snow and ice had accumulated on the lot in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians traveling thereon; and that the [defendants] had notice [,] either actual or constructive, of the existence of such condition … and … that it was this dangerous accumulation of snow or ice into the ridges or elevations which actually caused the [wife] to fall.”

In short what this type of jury instruction does is it describes the hills and ridges doctrine that was established in the Rinaldi case (1962). The doctrine protects landowners from the imposition of premises liability when generally slippery conditions exist unless a plaintiff can prove 3 items:

1. Snow or ice accumulated on the sidewalk in quantities such that that hills and ridges form. The hills and ridges were of sufficient nature to unreasonably obstruct travel and are a danger to pedestrians
2. The landowner or the individual with control of the property knew of the dangerous condition or had reason to know of it.
3. The snow or ice accumulation caused the individual to fall and injure themselves.

Thus, when there is a natural accumulation of snow, the hills and ridges doctrine must be satisfied for liability to attach to the property owner. However, the hills and ridges doctrine is not without its limits. Since the 1960s it has been held by Pennsylvania courts that the doctrine applies only when the accumulation of snow or ice is due to an entirely natural accumulation. Rinadli v. Levine, 406 Pa. 74, 176 A.2d 623 (1962). Furthermore, the hills and ridges doctrine applies solely when there is a generalized slippery condition and it does not apply when slippery conditions are merely localized, such as in the case of a single icy patch. Tonik v. Apex Garages, Inc., 442 Pa. 373, 275 A.2d 296 (1971). Additionally, the doctrine would not apply if the slippery conditions were the product of negligence such as the failure to repair a leaking pipe.

What if a Landowner Fails to Clear Ice and Snow and I am Injured?

As discussed above, if a landowner has failed to clear ice and snow from his or her property and an injury has occurred, whether liability is likely to attach is an extremely fact-sensitive determination. Factors that commonly influence whether the landowner’s conduct could be considered negligent or improper include:

• The storm’s duration
• The amount of snow or ice accumulation
• The amount of time elapsed between the snow or ice fall and the injury
• The type of property
• The surface that the injured individual fell on (sidewalk, road, grassy area, parking lot, etc)
• Whether actual or constructive notice was provided

For instance, consider the decision in Alexander v. City of Meadville where, on February 9, 2008, an individual slipped and fell on localized icy conditions present in front of a business. Alexander v. City of Meadville, 61 A.3d 218, (2012). The business claimed that it had not been negligent because it had dutifully cleared ice and snow accumulations from its sidewalks during business hours. The company, however, did not clear ice and snow from the walkway when the business was not open such as was the case with this injury. The court found that liability could not be imposed on the company because despite its duty to keep that particular stretch of sidewalk clear, “[it] would not have had notice of the accumulation of ice and snow, nor would it be proper for us to hold that it should have known of this condition at the time of the accident.”

Perhaps underscoring the close factual analysis necessary for cases of this, consider the contrasting result in Harvey v. Rouse Chamberlain, Ltd., 901 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 2006). In this matter, ice and snow had begun to accumulate the day prior to the January 2001 accident.  While the streets had been plowed in the plaintiff’s development, many of the sidewalks had yet to be shoveled. When the plaintiff reached a particular un-shoveled sidewalk, she decided to walk in the street which appeared to be the safer option. While walking in the street, plaintiff slipped on black ice. The trial court determined the matter to be a non-suit based on the fact that black ice is a natural condition.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed finding that the black ice was the result of human intervention – chiefly the snow plowing activity – and therefore the hills and ridges doctrine was inapplicable. Absent this defense, the matter should have proceeded to the jury to determine whether the failure to treat a black ice condition constituted negligence.

Lawsuits for Slipping on Icy Sidewalks in PA

If you are severely injured, suing a homeowner for failing to clear their sidewalk might be your best way to get your medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering compensated. Some falls have particularly severe injuries, especially if you suffered brain injuries, injured your back, or suffered a broken or fractured bone. You may have medical bills piling up, may need to miss work during your recovery, and may experience severe pain and suffering. Filing a lawsuit may get all of these compensated as “damages.”

Choosing a target for the lawsuit (the “defendant”) is the first step. While your attorney can research the proper person to sue, the correct party is usually the owner of the building adjacent to the sidewalk where you fell. This means if the building is a commercial property (e.g. store or restaurant), you sue the owner. For a home, you sue either the tenant or the landlord – or join them both in the lawsuit and determine who is at fault later. For a multifamily home like an apartment building, you usually sue the owner of the building, and not necessarily any tenants. Lastly, the government is often not responsible for sidewalks, and puts the duty on the property owner instead.

The lawsuit itself requires proving four elements. The first is the duty, discussed above. Determining the proper duty helps determine what the defendant was legally required to do. Second, you prove how they breached that duty. This shows what they did wrong to let you be injured. Third, you must prove their failures caused your injuries. Lastly, you prove the specific damages (e.g. medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering) you incurred, and the specific values they should pay you. If you can prove all of these elements, you should be able to win your lawsuit.

Our Attorneys Can Help

If you or a loved one fell on an icy sidewalk, you may want to file a lawsuit against the negligent building owner. The Philadelphia personal injury lawyers at The Reiff Law Firm have decades of experience representing slip and fall injury victims. For a free consultation on your case, contact our law offices today at (215) 709-6940.