LANDOWNERS LIABILITY-SLIP AND FALL

Hinerman v. Westmoreland County Airport Auth., 2023 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 78 (June 15, 2023) (Ceisler, J.) Janet and Richard Hinerman appeal from a June 15, 2022 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (Trial Court), which granted the Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion) filed by Westmoreland County Airport Authority (Airport Authority). The Hinermans argue that a genuine issue of material fact remains in their negligence action against the Airport Authority, and, therefore, the Trial Court improperly granted the Motion. Upon review, we affirm. Instead of using the paved walkway or the driveway, the Hinermans opted for the most direct route toward the parked car, which was across the snow-covered grassy area. Mr. Hinerman crossed the snow and reached the other parking lot without incident. While Mrs. Hinerman followed along a slightly different path, her feet stumbled into a depression in the ground, several inches deep, which had been obscured by the snow cover. Mrs. Hinerman landed on her knees; feeling severe pain in her left foot, she was unable to stand for approximately five minutes. Mr. Hinerman helped his wife up to her feet and into the rental car, which she drove to their home on her own. Mrs. Hinerman’s testimony clearly established that she voluntarily departed from the area intended for her use in order to take a shortcut across snow-covered, unimproved land to her destination. Consequently, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Airport Authority breached no duty to the Hinermans. Next, the Hinermans argue that the Trial Court applied a legally erroneous theory of landowner duty. In support, the Hinermans cite the Superior Court’s observation in Treadway v. Ebert Motor Co., 292 Pa. Super. 41, 436 A.2d 994, 998 (Pa. Super. 1981), that landowners owe business invitees a duty “to inspect the premises and to discover dangerous conditions.” In Treadway, a business invitee was injured when he slipped and fell on a snow-covered metal plate that had been installed to cover a worksite ditch, near the doorway to the landowner’s building. Id. at 995. The trial court granted nonsuit, reasoning that the metal plate did not create an especially dangerous condition. Id. at 997. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the trial court failed to consider evidence that the metal plate was in a position where visitors were required to walk on it while entering or exiting the building. Id. The precise location was important “because [the metal plate] was at a place which the defendant knew would be traveled by invitees.” Id. at 999. The Hinermans argue that the Airport Authority had a similar duty to discover and remedy dangerous conditions and that its failure to do so was the proximate cause of Mrs. Hinerman’s injuries. Contrary to the Hinermans’ arguments, Treadway does not stand for the proposition that landowners have a duty to remove all dangers from any part of their premises. In Treadway, the metal plate on which the plaintiff fell lay in the clear path of “ingress and egress” to and from the defendant’s offices. 436 A.2d at 998. It was “impossible not to step on the plate when exiting from the door”; consequently, the risk of injury was increased “[s]imply by where the plate was located.” Id. at 999. Here, by contrast, the depression in the ground over which Mrs. Hinerman tripped formed part of an unimproved area that was never intended for pedestrian use. Mr. Monzo and Mr. Haas both testified, and the Hinermans do not dispute, that pedestrians were never observed walking across the area where Mrs. Hinerman was injured. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Trial Court’s Order.