Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Greenbaum v. United States

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureFederal Tort Claims ActPremises LiabilityNegligenceContributory NegligenceFTCApremises liabilitybusiness invitee

Facts

Plaintiff, a postal employee who was off duty, went to the Bustleton Station post office to pick up his paycheck and buy stamps, parked in the rear lot, and tried to reach the employee entrance by using a ramp. He knew the driveway and parking lot had long been in poor condition, including a large pothole and loose gravel near the ramp, and he intentionally walked through fully snow-covered areas despite that knowledge. While squeezing between a parked car and the pothole, he stepped on loose gravel at the edge of the pothole and fractured his ankle. The government had repeatedly notified the lessors and their agents about the potholes and had solicited repair bids after receiving no response.

Issue

Whether the United States was negligent for plaintiff's fall in the post office parking area, and whether plaintiff's own conduct barred recovery under Pennsylvania contributory negligence principles. The court also considered whether the Pennsylvania hills and ridges doctrine applied.

Rule

Under Pennsylvania law, the hills and ridges doctrine applies only when a plaintiff's fall is caused by dangerous accumulations of snow or ice in ridges or elevations. A possessor of land owes a business invitee reasonable care to keep premises reasonably safe or to warn of hidden dangers, but has no duty to warn of dangers that are known or obvious. A plaintiff who fails to exercise reasonable care for his own safety and thereby contributes to his injury is barred from recovery by contributory negligence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On a lightly snowy morning in Pittsburgh, Dana Mercer walked across the rear lot of a fictional parcel service depot to reach a side entrance. About an inch of fresh snow covered most of the ground, but Dana actually tripped when her boot caught in a cracked patch of asphalt that had been there for months.

If Dana sues the land possessor under Pennsylvania premises-liability principles reflected in the majority opinion, which statement is most accurate about the hills and ridges doctrine?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that the hills and ridges doctrine applies only when the plaintiff’s fall is caused by dangerous accumulations of snow or ice in ridges or elevations. Where the actual cause of the fall is some other condition—such as a pothole, loose gravel, or cracked pavement—the doctrine is inapplicable, even if snow was also present.