Kansas City weather can be unpredictable, and typically brings a threat of snow, ice, sleet, and sub-freezing temperatures. The freeze and thaw cycle, paired with normal precipitation, can increase the chances of weather-related slips and falls on a property. We have some insight on Navigating Winter Weather: Premises Liability Tips to Stay Safe.
Before we begin, let’s understand the definition of a premises liability case. According to MRH Injury Law, it’s a danger on someone else’s property that they did not resolve AND either did know about it or should’ve known about it. Common scenarios include slip and fall accidents, inadequate security, structural issues, falling objects, and animal attacks.
After reviewing the definition of a premises liability case, it’s easy to see how winter weather conditions in Kansas City can pose a threat for slips and falls when the property isn’t property cleared. In snow and ice premises liability cases, the question considered is whether or not the possessor of the premises had a duty to protect others from the snow and ice dangers. Before we continue, let’s review the definition of a possessor of the premises to clearly understand the parties to consider.
What is a possessor of a premises?
A possessor of a premises can be the landowner, a management company, the lessee, or others having control of the property. In most premises’ liability cases, the possessor has a duty to use reasonable care to prevent injury to guests because of a dangerous condition existing on its premises, such as warning the guest of the hazard or fixing the dangerous condition.
The possessor of the premises should be easy to determine.
One of the first questions to consider when understanding a premises liability case related to winter weather is if the property possessor took reasonable steps to warn, alert, barricade, or clear away the snow and ice? Another is to look at the neighboring properties, asking yourself the following questions:
- Were the neighboring properties clear from snow or ice?
- Did they have proper warnings or barriers present?
- Is there anything they did that the location in question didn’t?
- Could the accident have been avoided if the possessor did things differently?
Factors to Consider After Weather Hits
One of the factors that can bring liability to the forefront is when the property in question has ice and snow spots that aren’t compacted or worn down by foot traffic; or when the gutters aren’t pushing water (which freezes) away from the walkway. If in doubt on whether to clear the walkway or not, the best advice is to remove as much snow, ice, and obstructions as possible to create a safe path.
However, weather-related premises liability cases can carry special rules compared to standard premises liability cases. Most importantly, the possessor has no duty to clear snow and ice that (1) accumulated naturally and (2) is a condition general within the community. Willis v. Springfield General Osteopathic Hospital, 804 S.W.2d 416, 419 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991); Agnew v. Dillons, Inc., 16 Kan. App. 2d 298 (1991). That is, the owner does not have a duty to remove naturally accumulating snow and ice on its property during a storm or a reasonable time thereafter. The reasoning for such a rule is persuasive:
[E]very pedestrian who ventures out at such time knows [he or she] is risking the chance of a fall and of a possible serious injury. A requirement that a business proprietor continually expend effort during a winter storm to remove precipitation from outdoor surfaces would essentially be a requirement to ensure the safety of invitees and is a burden which is beyond that of ordinary care. Furthermore, “since the storm had not finally terminated, the exercise of reasonable care no more required defendant to warn of the result of the weather than it did to remedy the result.” Agnew, 16 Kan. App. at 301.
And although possessors are generally responsible only for their own property, some cities, like Kansas City, require possessors to clear snow and ice from adjacent sidewalks.
Cited from https://library.municode.com regarding the Kansas City ordinance: It shall be the duty of all persons owning or occupying any real property, fronting upon any street, boulevard or highway, to remove from the sidewalks in front or alongside of such property all ice and snow within a reasonable time after cessation of a storm depositing such ice or snow.
For natural precipitation, the possessor is required to take remedial measures only when the snow or ice becomes an isolated condition compared to the general community. An isolated condition exists when the conditions on the property differ from the community.
For example, if most other properties and businesses have cleared their walkways within a day of the precipitation, then any properties that have failed to clear the natural accumulations may be liable if that condition injures someone.
While that is the general rule in Kansas and Missouri, a duty to protect against falls may arise even during the snowstorm.
By Conduct. If a landowner affirmatively alters the condition of the snow or ice on its premises, it has assumed the duty to remove that snow and ice from the premises.
Artificial Accumulation or Isolated Conditions Despite Generally Adverse Conditions Community-Wide. If a dangerous and isolated condition exists on the property that differs from the general community as a whole, the possessor is responsible for making it safe.
Similarly, property owners have a duty to remove snow and ice on its property artificially caused by the owner. This is true even in places an owner typically does not have a duty to remove snow at all. Wilson v. Goodland State Bank, 5 Kan. App. 2d 36, (1980), although landowners don’t generally have a duty to clear snow on public sidewalks, an exception exists “where ice does not come from natural sources, but rather is artificially created by accumulation and discharge of water from the landowner’s property which causes a hazardous condition.”
Possessor and Contractor Can Share Responsibility in Liability Claims
We know that once the snow or ice hits, the property must be cleared to a reasonable state. When a snow removal company is involved, the liability is impacted. If a property possessor hires XYZ snow removal company to complete a contractual service of removing the snow from the walkways, and someone falls… who carries the fault then? For example, if the property owner salts the parking lot causing ice to melt, and that melted precipitation runs down the lot and later refreezes, that owner is responsible for causing that artificial ice condition. If the hired snow removal company caused that same condition, the injured party may have a general negligence claim against the snow removal company.
While property owners have a duty to use reasonable care to prevent injury, snow and ice liability cases have their own special rules and must be handled accordingly.
Contact a Kansas City Premises Liability Lawyer for Snow and Ice Cases
Contact MRH Injury Law should you be facing a weather-related situation and need experts to weigh in. Our team has extensive experience and systems in place, and we’ve prevailed in the appellate courts, and winning at trial.
Contact Us for a Free Consultation