Three Types of Claims for Falls on Ice at a Business Property in Pennsylvania Personal Injury Cases
June 14, 2012 By Wolpert Schreiber P.C.
If you fall on ice while a customer or patron of a business, there are 3 main types of claims. They are sometimes misunderstood. In Pennsylvania, owners or managers of commercial property open for business are required to keep their premises safe for people coming there for business reasons. For example, a store which opens for business must clear snow and ice or otherwise treat it with salt or other material so that patrons can travel safely.
There are three main types of legal cases involving injuries due to ice or snow on a business property. The first is where there are generally icy or snowy conditions in the area. Here the controlling law is called the "hills and ridges" doctrine. This means that after having had a reasonable notice and opportunity to treat the conditions, the owner or manager must clear or treat the snow or ice so as to prevent it from being a danger to people on the property. The injured person must prove that the owner or manager carelessly or negligently permitted the snow or ice to pile up dangerously.
The second type of situation is where there is an isolated patch of ice that the owner or manager failed to remove or treat by means of shoveling, salt, spreading ashes or cinders. Here, the point is that there is no one solid sheet of ice. The theory is that when there are just patches of ice, the owner or manager must seek out those patches and treat them. For example, it had snowed several days before at a shopping mall and there were melt and refreeze conditions in which a few patches of ice formed. Even if the mall had shoveled the snow 2 days before, it must continue to check and make sure that ice didn't refreeze in a patch in an area where a customer is likely to walk.
The third scenario is where there is a defective or unsafe condition on the property which was the cause of the ice formation. For example, a leaky gutter or a hole in pavement where water collects and freezes. A business or store is required to maintain its premises so as to fix dangerous conditions and prevent them from causing injury to customers.
Under each of the three scenarios, the store or business can try to argue as a defense that the condition was so open and obvious that the person injured was negligent in not avoiding it and that there was a safer path. Obviously the weather data and conditions in the area are important evidence in these cases as well.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: David E. Schreiber
David Schreiber is concentrates his practice in Personal Injury and Insurance Disputes.
Copyright Wolpert Schreiber P.C.
More information about Wolpert Schreiber P.C.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
The second type of situation is where there is an isolated patch of ice that the owner or manager failed to remove or treat by means of shoveling, salt, spreading ashes or cinders. Here, the point is that there is no one solid sheet of ice. The theory is that when there are just patches of ice, the owner or manager must seek out those patches and treat them. For example, it had snowed several days before at a shopping mall and there were melt and refreeze conditions in which a few patches of ice formed. Even if the mall had shoveled the snow 2 days before, it must continue to check and make sure that ice didn't refreeze in a patch in an area where a customer is likely to walk.
The third scenario is where there is a defective or unsafe condition on the property which was the cause of the ice formation. For example, a leaky gutter or a hole in pavement where water collects and freezes. A business or store is required to maintain its premises so as to fix dangerous conditions and prevent them from causing injury to customers.
Under each of the three scenarios, the store or business can try to argue as a defense that the condition was so open and obvious that the person injured was negligent in not avoiding it and that there was a safer path. Obviously the weather data and conditions in the area are important evidence in these cases as well.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: David E. Schreiber
David Schreiber is concentrates his practice in Personal Injury and Insurance Disputes.
Copyright Wolpert Schreiber P.C.
More information about Wolpert Schreiber P.C.
View all articles published by Wolpert Schreiber P.C.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
