HARRISBURG – A Montrose grocery store and other entities have seen their granting of summary judgment in an icy slip-and-fall case affirmed by a Pennsylvania appellate court.
Superior Court judges Mary Jane Bowes, Judith Ference Olson and John L. Musmanno reached the decision in favor of Price Chopper Operating Co. Of PA, Golub Corp., Montrose Partners Of Albany, LP and Holbrook Lawncare on Aug. 26.
In doing so, they rejected the appeal of plaintiffs Mary Jane Spolar and Gregory Spolar, with Olson authoring the Court’s opinion.
“The Price Chopper grocery store in Montrose, Pennsylvania, opens for customers at 6:00 a.m. Holbrook has a contract with Montrose Partners to perform snow removal at the Price Chopper grocery store in Montrose. On Feb. 16, 2016, there had been some precipitation in Montrose and Holbrook put salt down on the parking lot of the Price Chopper grocery store at 6:18 p.m,” Olson stated.
“On the morning of Feb. 17, 2016, Holbrook arrived at the Price Chopper grocery store around 7:00 a.m. with his wife, April, to check the conditions of the parking lot. When they arrived, there were a few cars in the parking lot. They walked the parking lot and determined that no salt was needed. After checking the parking lot, Holbrook and his wife went to breakfast.”
Olson said the Spolars live eight miles from the Price Chopper grocery store. At around 6:30 a.m. on Feb. 17, 2016, Mary Jane Spolar observed a wintry-mix at her house and left home an hour later to drive her husband to physical therapy in Montrose.
“After Spolar dropped her husband off for his physical therapy, she drove to the Price Chopper grocery store. Spolar arrived in the Price Chopper grocery store parking lot around 7:45 a.m. Spolar stated that when she drove her car into the grocery store parking lot, she noticed ‘the whole parking lot was wet,” Olson said.
“Spolar observed the ‘assistant store manager,’ who was in the front of the grocery store about five feet into the parking lot, rubbing his foot on the pavement ‘checking for ice.’ Spolar pulled into a parking spot and when she stepped out of her car with her left foot, her left foot slid on ice and she fell out of her vehicle. Her tailbone struck the ground.”
Spolar fell on ice that was under her car and extended to the next parking spot, ice she claimed was “clear”, “smooth” and looked “wet.” While she was on the ground, she saw what looked like tire tracks in the ice that was in the parking spots near her parking place, but further away from the grocery store entrance, and she said it looked like frost coating that ice.
Spolar got up, got back in her car, and moved her vehicle to another parking spot where there was no ice. She went into the grocery store and reported her fall to a cashier, who in turn notified the assistant store manager. After Spolar completed a report of her fall with the assistant store manager, Patrick Banas, who helped Spolar to her car. Spolar then picked up her husband, and they went to the hospital.
Banas inspected the area in the parking lot where Spolar slipped, saying there was black ice in the parking space that was smooth and was maybe two feet in size. Banas them called Holbrook and reported that someone fell on ice in the parking lot. After the phone call, Holbrook and his wife returned to the Price Chopper grocery store to check conditions.
“When Holbrook and his wife got to the parking lot, they observed that conditions changed and there was ice throughout the Price Chopper grocery store parking lot. Holbrook and his wife left to get their salt truck and when they got back to the store, Holbrook applied salt throughout the parking lot at around 8:30 a.m,” Olson said.
“After they completed salting the Price Chopper grocery store parking lot, Holbrook and his wife placed salt on the parking lots of other properties in Montrose that they were responsible for servicing, including Tractor Supply, Visions, Storeroom Solutions, Tim Carpenter, Rite Aid, McDonalds, and several others.”
Olson then described the initiation of litigation against the defendants.
“On June 16, 2017, appellants filed a complaint against Golub, Montrose Partners, and Holbrook as a result of the injuries Spolar suffered in the Price Chopper grocery store parking lot on Feb. 17, 2016,” Olson said.
“In their complaint, appellants alleged that Golub and Montrose Partners were negligent in permitting ice to exist in the parking lot while the grocery store was open for business to invitees, such as Spolar, and that Holbrook was negligent in his treatment of the parking lot to prevent the formation of ice. Spolar’s husband also brought a loss of consortium cause of action.”
The defendants filed motion for summary judgment in October 2019. Appellants filed responses to the motions for summary judgment, and on Dec. 2, 2019, the trial court heard argument on the matter. On Jan. 8, the trial court granted the motions for summary judgment.
On appeal, the movants felt that the hills and ridges doctrines shouldn’t have been applied and likewise, that summary judgment on those grounds shouldn’t have been granted.
“Appellants argue that because Spolar fell on a ‘patch of ice,’ her fall was caused by a specific, localized condition and that generally slippery conditions did not exist since the parking lot surface had “only a couple spots of ice” on it. Appellants contend, therefore, that the hills and ridges doctrine does not apply,” Olson said.
Though the appellants needed to demonstrate that the ice accumulated on the Price Chopper grocery store parking lot would “unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians travelling thereon”, Olson stated the hills and ridges doctrine was “misapplied” in this argument and not overcome on appeal.
“In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellants…the evidence demonstrated that, on the morning of Spolar’s fall, the ice was clear and smooth and that the frost on top of the ice was less than a quarter of an inch in thickness. The thin layer of ice covering the surface of the Price Chopper grocery store parking lot, otherwise known as ‘black ice’, on the morning of Spolar’s fall was not an accumulation of ice sufficient to overcome the hills and ridges doctrine,” Olson said.
“Therefore, appellants failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that the ice accumulated on the parking lot in ridges or elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger to pedestrians travelling thereon.”
The Superior Court judges “discerned no error of law or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Golub, Montrose Partners, and Holbrook.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 119 MDA 2020
Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas case 2017-00758
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com