dissent, has problems. She sees in the record before the Court "triable issues of material fact" as to "whether the storm in question had ended, and if so whether a reasonable period of time had passed" to hold defendant liable for the trooper's injuries.
The SIP doctrine, Judge Rivera explains, "reflects practical concerns related to the challenges and dangers of maintaining property in reasonably safe conditions during inclement weather." Plainly put, it's hard and could be dangerous to clear snow when continuing snow and ice just re-covers the walkways as soon as they are cleaned. But, the trooper said that when he left the barracks at 8:15 AM, there was only a light rain falling-no "wintry mix." Both the clima- tological report and two road cleaning operators confirmed that at 7 AM, it was only raining.
Above-freezing rain does not come within the SIP doctrine, explains Judge Rivera, and the Court has never held so before. When an ice storm changes due to warming weather into mere rain, the storm is over. "In other words, if the storm conditions had passed, such that there was only above-freezing rain, then the justification for the storm-in- progress rule no longer holds water."
On a summary judgment motion, reminds the dissent, the Court must "view the facts in the light most favorable" to the non-moving party and "indulge all available inferences" favorable to that non-moving party. There are bluntly obvious questions of fact here and, that being said, the Court should have denied SJ. That's the way it's supposed to be done. Yes, a dissent, but a clear indication that someone is listening.