Ice and snow slide and waterfall - "Hill and valley doctrine"

The doctrine of "hills and embankment" protects those who manage sliding and falling properties on ice and snow. However, confusion exists about the applicability of this defense. This can only be used if ice and snow accumulate naturally.

Pennsylvania Standard Civil Court order 7.04 (obligation of owner / owner's nursing) (ice or snow when hitting a public sidewalk or walking surface) states as follows.

People who own land need to remove publicly accumulated ice and snow [sidewalk] [walking surface] After noticing the existence of a dangerous condition, it contacts his property within a reasonable time. In order to bear the responsibility of the landowner, the defendant must prove that each of the following three points exists:

First, ice and snow [sidewalk] [walking surface] It was in a ridge or a protuberance that unduly interfered the trip and was at risk of pedestrians.

Second, that the defense property owner knew or knew of the existence of such conditions.

Third, ice and snow accumulated dangerously and the plaintiff fell down.
The first "essential" of the Standard Jury Instruction is generally known as the doctrine of "Hills and Ridges." Doctrine escapes liability for owner or possessor of land "generally slippery condition due to ice and snow not permitting ice and snow to unreasonably accumulate on ridges and ridges". Morin v. Traveler & # 39; s Rest Motel, Inc., 704 A.2 d 1085, 1087 (Pa. Super 1997). Because land under the doctrine is an impossible burden to require that there is always ice and snow on a pavement in consideration of the Pennsylvania climatic conditions, the landowner is likely to have a general slippery condition You should not be held responsible for it. Wentz v. Pennswood Apts. , 518 A.2 d 314 (Pa. Super. 1986).

However, there is a limit to the applicability of the doctrine of "hills and embankment". Doctrine may only be applied in the presence of snow and ice that appealed to be essentially the result of natural accumulation following recent weather forecasts. Because the protection given by Doctrine, these formation is our climate. Bacsick v. Barnes, 341 A.2d 157 (Pa.) As such, when ice and snow are localized and there are no slippery conditions in the community in general and when it is slippery due to artificial conditions rather than recent ones When the condition is caused For example, the state of ice due to the melting and refreezing of snow and ice, not recent storm, will not follow the doctrine of "hills and embankments", as well as ice State pipes and leakage gutters are not subject to doctrine.

Recent Harvey v. In Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd., 901 A.2 d 523 (Pa. Super 2004), the upper court insisted that the doctrine of "hills and embankment" did not apply when Mrs. Harvey fell on the road Recently it was cultivated It looked like it was clean and dry, but in reality there was black ice. The upper court found that a court that allows non-action based on the "hilly territory" is inappropriate because the state of the land is sometimes thawed to be "affected by human-induced intervention". It is inherently an accumulation of nature. Id. At 527

In pursuing, defending, falling over or falling over armed ice and snow, it is essential to understand and properly analyze the "hill and embankment" law to judge whether defense is applied .