I can’t speak for your local laws, but where I live the homeowner does own their sidewalk. In fact, they own all the way to the center of the street. (Which means, for example, installing a new sewer pipe from the street to their house is their own responsibility.)
The sidewalk and street are open to the public via an easement you agree to when you buy the lot.
I believe in NJ it’s actually the opposite to an extent. Despite whatever municipal ordinances such as may be a homeowner is not liable for any injuries that result from them not shoveling. However, they can theoretically be liable if they do shovel, because in that case the injury could be ruled as the result of the homeowners’ actions and not from nature.
The link above says that if as a natural result of shoveling the snow ends up being ice the homeowner would not be liable. But what could happen is that a court could rule that in a given instance the homeowner did a bad job shoveling, e.g. piled up snow in a given place, or created too uneven a walking surface, and then find this creates liability. So from a tort standpoint, it’s safer to not shovel at all.
Illinois passed the Snow and Ice Removal Act which prevents people from suing those who attempt to keep their sidewalk shoveled. And previous efforts to sue (scroll down about halfway) were basically unsuccessful. But the city of Chicago, at the very least - the other counties/cities/etc may vary wildly - definitely requires you to shovel.
Under the common law, the property line runs to the center of the street. Many jurisdictions have changed that. For example, Illinois, shortly after the incorporation of the original town of Chicago, provided that in any statutory plat, the municipality has ownership of the street portion. Note that the plat must strictly conform to the Act. Thus, due to a technical defect, the 1st National Bank pf Chicago retained title to half of Monroe St., thereby not having to pay rent for the underground storage facilities.
Also under common law, an owner is not responsible for acts of nature. Thus, no obligation to clear the walk. However, if he did anything at all, he would be responsible. Thus, after clearing his walk, if someone slipped, the owner would be liable. Many jurisdictions have changed that.
A municipality has, as already noted, plenary police powers to require that an owner clear the sidewalk in front of his house even if he doesn’t own it.
You guys are confusing modern day talk about Federal government with the reality of State power. The Federal government needed some specific, enumerated power that would allow it to say “hey, purchase or have insurance or qualify for an exemption as laid out in the PPACA, or we penalize you come tax time with this fine.” The Federal government has no power that is not specifically enumerated to it, so for the individual mandate to stand there had to be some link between that piece of the law and recognized enumerated powers of the Federal government.
I believe (not going to look it up and going from half-remembered second hand commentary) that the administration’s argued position before the SCOTUS was that the enumerated power that gave the Federal government the right to do this was the interstate commerce clause which gives the Federal government the authority to make laws and regulate interstate commerce. It was a good choice on which to build your case, because the commerce clause has been very notably one that the SCOTUS has frequently interpreted very, very broadly and thus has been the cornerstone of most successful expansions of Federal power in the 20th century. In a rare case where the SCOTUS disagreed with a commerce clause assertion by the executive branch, they actually said that no, the commerce clause would not provide for an individual mandate. However, since the mandate was enforced through a tax, the mandate itself just constituted a type of tax–and thus was constitutional under the Federal government’s specific power to tax (enshrined in the core constitution for some types of taxes, and in a constitutional amendment for income taxes.)
State and city governments don’t have at all the same situation. For States they have the following questions you’d have to ask to determine if the state law was not allowed/legal:
First and foremost–does this law violate anything in the State Constitution. This is first and foremost because most constitutional challenges of State laws begin in the State court system, and thus if something is clearly against a State constitution it would be most likely struck down by the State supreme court before it ever made it to the Federal supreme court.
Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution (understand this includes the body of jurisprudence) that prohibits the type of government action the State is trying to effect in its legislation? Note that this is basically Bill of Rights type protections, as well as a few other scattered protections in other amendments (the main body of the constitution doesn’t have much in it that limits State action in many areas.)
Does the law directly conflict with Federal statute or treaties entered into by the U.S. government?
If the answer to any of those is “yes” then the law would be unconstitutional. But again, you’d have to find specific prohibitions. For example a State can’t abolish free speech because of the first amendment. But a State can ban alcohol because nothing in the U.S. Constitution says it cannot, and if nothing in the State Constitution prohibits it a municipality, county, or State could ban alcohol possession or consumption etc.
The Federal government cannot ban alcohol because none of its enumerated powers would grant it that power. When Prohibition was enacted they had to pass a Constitutional amendment for the specific reason that there could be no legislation that would pass constitutional muster sans-amendment, that would have allowed Congress to ban the sale, distribution, manufacture etc of alcohol. When the amendment was repealed, all it did was put us back to where we started–the Federal government having no legal authority to ban alcohol. But the repeal did not create a right to alcohol at the constitutional level, so States can still ban it as they please.
For local governments (municipal and county), basically all of the above questions apply plus a few extra. Namely State Constitutions will typically stipulate how localities and the State government interact/intersect, in some States all of it is very centralized and municipalities have very limited “home rule” in others, they can pass any ordinance that doesn’t conflict with State law. There is usually a governing charter or similar document for county/municipal governments that also has some restrictions on what ordinances can and cannot be passed.
But in practice, this leaves a vast amount of actions or policies which are not prohibited by any Federal constitutional provision, Federal law, or State constitution and thus can be freely enacted by States and localities. Alcohol bans are a good example, I’m not sure if there is any true dry county left in America (although I believe some Indian Reservations are), but that’s just because of shifting local opinion. As recently at least as my childhood there were true dry counties. “True” dry county means it’s basically like prohibition is still going on, which means you can’t serve it, can’t sell it at retail, and can’t even possess it. I think the most restrictive outside of Indian Reservation areas that you see now is some counties do not allow businesses to serve alcohol, retail sale alcohol, and there are limits on how much you can transport privately at one time.
So to the issue of being required to shovel snow. It would appears:
At least partially this is more of a civil violation as it’s being referenced in this thread, meaning it’s just a civil offense and not a criminal offense. Which makes it a different consideration. You generally have even less protections in terms of what sort of civil offenses can be levied against you–but likewise government has less power over you for a civil offense. [Red light cameras are typically civil offenses, and thus in many if not most places are not enforceable through the police power of the court system but instead is a bill collections type process where you may eventually get wage garnishment or the matter turned over to a collections agency if you refuse to pay.]
Lets say at least some such laws are not just civil offenses, but criminal matters, and the State is basically using its police power to compel you to do labor for the public good. There in theory are a few things this might violate, most prominently the 13th Amendment. Well, you guys aren’t the first ones to follow this line of thought. People who wanted to avoid being drafted into WWI had a similar line of thinking that, “ah ha, this is no longer constitutional since we have the 13th Amendment”, but the court has rejected the argument out of hand and firmly established conscription is a long established, ancient power of government, intrinsic to government’s ability to raise armies and conduct wars and after that the SCOTUS has mostly not even addressed the issue as lower courts dismiss similar suits pretty rapidly.
I do not know if the specific concept of conscription for labor has been so thoroughly addressed. But as has been mentioned, it’s an extremely established but no longer common practice, dating back to Colonial America and having continued at least into the late 19th century in America and possibly early 20th. It was even much more onerous than the sidewalk shoveling requirement, because you were formally conscripted into works crews and had to actually spend a couple weeks of your life walking around doing pretty unpleasant manual labor to maintain roads, do repairs to bridges and things of that nature.This went away only for practical and technical purposes. When civil infrastructure was far simpler we’re often talking dirt roads or cantilever roads etc that do not require great expertise to maintain, and when more than half the country were farmers and thus perfectly suited to the task at hand. With modern roads designed for cars and modern civil engineering works there’s no place for just drafting grunts, at least not that would be much use. I’d also wager part of the reason the practice died out is the work that could still be relegated to grunts in the early 20th century in the South especially, were relegated to prison chain gangs as America moved from a society that mostly didn’t use long term incarceration as a punishment to one which used it as the primary punishment for most crimes.
All this public right of way momble-jumble but the Appalachian Trail is also likewise, why is it not snow and ice cleared?
This, and several other comments along similar lines, seem to be obscuring what would seem to me to be a difference between outlawing a given action or requiring one.
Yeah, I always thought Roberts was brilliant (despite what I think of his POV) in simultaneously putting a limit on the interstate commerce clause, while avoiding the activist judge label and the accusation of partisan court decisions.
The thing is, we already have innumberable such requirements and restrictions. There are bylaws about cleanliness and grooming of your lot (grass height, weeds, etc.), there are parking rules, there are zoning laws on what you can or cannot do with your home or business, etc. Some cities issue downtown curb parking permits, IIRC - you can get a permit to park in the road near your property, but not just anywhere. Some municipalities IIRC also require you to cut the city’s share of the grass along your property. I don’t see a requirement to keep the sidewalk clean as exceptional.
If it became extreme or impractical (or dangerous) like “you also must shovel the street” it might be judged excessive and perhaps unreasonable.
What part of the U.S. Constitution or a specific Federal law, or specific State Constitution, or an appellate or higher court decision do you believe prohibits State governments from mandating behavioral actions versus simply outlawing a given action?
If I kill a deer, I have to take it in and have it tagged, it’s a crime if I don’t. If I own a dog I have to get a license for it and pay a small fee. If I own a property, in some places, I’m required to shovel snow on public easements through or adjacent to the property. Not seeing a difference. You can call any of those things “outlawing actions”, my deer example is “taking a deer without properly tagging it.” The dog is “owning a dog without properly licensing it.” The snow example is “owning properly without properly maintain legal requirements associated with said property”, putting it in a similar class to things like city ordinances that require me to mow my lawn.
Laws can’t, by their nature, force you to take an action. No law has that power because humans always have the free will which enables them to disobey a law. Laws instead can only be enforced when people disobey them by the police power of the State. So rhetorically any law that “requires a given action” can be re-framed as “a law that prohibits a specific action” or vice versa. Ali was arrested for refusing to be drafted, for example. So did the draft law require an action or did it just prohibit a specific action (in this case failure to be inducted.)
This is not something I’ve ever had to worry about, since I live in a not-particularly-snowy area, and live in a condo, not a house. So I’m curious how this works.
Some of the analogies to keeping your grass cut don’t seem to map perfectly, since those are pretty predictable expenses. You know you have to cut your grass every other week, or get someone to do it. Removing snow seems like it would require you to be present to know it snowed and deal with it. It strikes me as a harder obligation to uphold, particularly if you travel or own a home in a city you don’t live in.
Anyway, I’d love to understand how it works better. Fight my ignorance.
All I know is I used to live on a corner lot and it pissed me off that I had to shovel 6-8 times the length of sidewalk as my next door neighbors. :mad:
It all depends on the state, county, and town you live in.
In my post above, I linked the regulations for the city of Chicago, for instance. That has no bearing on the particular suburb of Chicago that I inhabit.
(If you’re worried about long travel, you may hire someone to take care of it, much as one would do with a lawn.)
No it isn’t. The requirement is that the sidewalk be clear of snow, not that you get out a shovel and personally clear it. If you want to hire someone to do it or build a machine that clears it, go for it.
Taxes aren’t slavery either, even though you probably have to work to get the money to pay them.
Moderator Note
Welcome to the SDMB, ThisUsernameIsForbidden.
General Questions is for questions with factual answers. Please note that while we do allow folks to have some fun with posts here, we prefer that you hold off on the less serious answers until after the factual aspect of the topic has been answered.
From the General Questions Rules & FAQs stickied at the top of this forum:
If you haven’t already done so, please take the time to read all of the stickies and FAQs on the various forums here.
No warning issued.
In Denver it used to be that if you fell and slipped on the sidewalk of someone who had not shoveled, you couldn’t sue because the snow was there as an act of God. But if you shoveled, and then it melted a bit and froze over and someone slipped, they could sue you for clearing the stuff negligently.
However, as far as I know this has never happened because the judge would probably laugh you out of court for suing because you slipped on an icy sidewalk in the winter.
But I know of two people whose slips and falls were covered by business owners. Both occurred in the parking lot (where I guess the snow had been removed negligently), one at a place she was shopping, one at a place where he worked. In both cases the owners of the property reached out before any lawsuits, but I assume this based on the likelihood that any such lawsuit would be won by the plaintiff.
In Denver, 24 hours after the storm (i.e., after the snow stops falling)
In my neighborhood there are teenagers walking around with shovels just begging to let them clear the snow for money. One of them is my son. He will shovel the walks even if they can’t pay but if they want the driveway done they have to give him something.
If you don’t clear it by a certain time, and someone complains, the city will clear it and bill you. Presumably you will come home at some point and find the bill.
Owner, and that’s who will get the bill, but a lot of leases specify that the tenant is responsible for snow clearing during their occupancy.
Seems like having a municipal crew drive a snow-blower up and down the city’s sidewalks would be far more efficient than requiring each property owner to do his own. That is, assess each property a fee for sidewalk snowblowing and use that money to get it done by the city. Wouldn’t it end up being cheaper to hire the job done in bulk that way?
In the UK, there as certainly no law, or even obligation, for a homeowner to clear snow from the pavement (sidewalk). Many people do though but many have been discouraged by something of an urban myth that you can be liable if someone slips on the cleared area.
This resulted in advice from local councils: “it is very unlikely that you would face any legal liability, as long as you are careful, and use common sense to ensure that you do not make the pavement or pathway clearly more dangerous than before. People using areas affected by snow and ice also have responsibility to be careful themselves.”
They also add this: "Be a good neighbour: some people may be unable to clear snow and ice on paths leading to their property or indeed the footway fronting their property. " along with other sensible advice about not blocking drains, and getting out there early before people trample it solid.
Incidentally, nearly all pavements are owned and maintained by the local council at the council taxpayer’s expense. There are cases where the homeowners own the road and pavements, but these are rare.
In Ann Arbor, It’s also 24 hours for residential, but shorter for commercial property:
Around here, you’d contract for this at the start of the snow season, not after a snowfall. I think different places will offer seasonal or per-snowfall rates, but I’ve never used one of the services.