From that self-same page:
“Residential landowners or occupants are only liable for willful and wanton
misconduct in the removal of ice or snow. The applicable statute provides:
Any owner, lessor, occupant or other person in charge of any
residential property, or any agent of or other person engaged by
any such party, who removes or attempts to remove snow or ice
from sidewalks abutting the property shall not be liable for any
personal injuries allegedly caused by the snowy or icy condition
of the sidewalk resulting in his or her acts or omissions unless
the alleged misconduct was willful or wanton.”
I fail to see how this supports your point. The one case cited there, was not snow removal from a sidewalk, but the dumping of snow into a large mound next to the sidewalk by a snowplow creating an unsafe condition. I’m still waiting for a case where attempted removal of snow, not the addition of snow resulted in someone winning a lawsuit against the landowner for a slip and fall.
The consensus from what I’ve read over here (England) is that it’s one of those myths where people are frightened into believing they would be liable, and misinformed individuals, companies and even councils avoid clearing snow because of that belief, but in fact it’s not true.
It’s not normally an issue in the main populated parts of England, because heavy snowfall is rare, but in the past two or three winters we have had quite a bit of snow so it has become newsworthy.
I agree with you that hardly anybody shovels snow, though. I think it’s just because deep snow is such a rarity that shovelling it has never been seen as something you should do.
Last winter we got about 10 inches of snow, and after 24 hours only three or four households (including mine) on my road had cleared their driveways and pavements.
Of course, the road was close to impassable as residential roads aren’t ploughed, so I guess people didn’t bother digging their cars out because they couldn’t get anywhere!
It was true under the common law. It appears from Mr Downtown’s site that Illinois has modified the c/l, so the owner is not liable unless the action was wilful and wanton (at least as to natural events). Apparently, many states, and possibly England, have similar laws. In another post, an Illinois statute was noted as imposing a duty to clear the walk, but that statute explicitly stated that the failure to do so would not make the owner liable in a civil action. (I don’t know the sanctions if the owner doesn’t. Possibly a fine.)
(IANAL but) The legal logic is obvious - if you made an effort to remove snow, then you showed that you knew it was hazardous. Failing to remove it properly means you are negligent. The fact someone fell supposedly proves that removal was not completed properly.
Meanwhile, leaving the snow untouched means the visitor is seeing the same natural condition and hazard they find everywhere - and must take the same care they would take anywhere else or simply avoid that path.
This is the same logic that suggests that if a business makes an attempt to correct a problem, then they show they have recognized the problem and so are duty-bound to fix it properly. Or if a web site in any way censors speech (hey there, moderators!) then they are partially liable if libellous speech remains on the site too long, whereas if they make no effort to remove offensive content, then offensive content is in no way their fault.
However, as others point out… The laws are writen to modify the basic logic - many places REQUIRE snow removal from sidewalks, so failing to make a reasonable effort to clean the snow automatically confers a liablity of negligence.
Of course, as also pointed out, the “must clear” rules only apply to the city sidewalks. You are welcome to ignore your walkway and driveway. At least in Canada, I have received notes from the Post Office warning that my mail will not be delivered unless/until I clean my walk to the mailbox properly…
Any other person except the mailman - well, the next test would be why did they walk a path that was obviously dangerous, unless invited?
The city of Chicago’s ordinance [thank you, Mr Downtown - I realized my error after posting, but I left for the day] requires snow removal, but explicitly states that does not impose liability. It does not automatically confer liability. It did not change the common law. The common law has been changed by statute, ordinance, or by case law in some jurisdictions.
Further, you are not welcome to ignore your walkway if the public has an easement on it and if the common law as to liability (not title) has been changed. A driveway or a walkway not used for the public, of course, need not be cleared, as anyone using that would be a trespasser. In the US (under the common law) the lot owner has fee to the sidewalk. If the common law has been changed (as it was in Illinois), then the city has the fee. If the city has the fee, I don’t see how they can make you clear it.
It may be obvious (to a lawyer), but ordinary people have more common sense! I can’t imagine a jury here in Minnesota ever penalizing an owner for making an effort, even a partial one, to clear snow & ice off their sidewalk. A jury would be much tougher on an owner who did nothing to clear off their sidewalk (which is illegal here, anyway).
This thread makes me thankful my subdivision/neighborhood never put in sidewalks. It was built in the 1950’s and somehow the developer got away with not putting them in. It’s unusual because most neighborhoods in my city do have sidewalks.
Geez people suing because they fall on a sidewalk. It isn’t worth having them then. People can walk in the street. Sue the city if they fall. Takes a big load off my mind when it snows.
When you go away, you are expected to make arrangements to have your property taken care of by someone during your absence. That’s part of being a responsible property owner. If you don’t, you pay the price.
But, in reality, it won’t happen that fast. If you’re gone for a long weekend and don’t get snow shoveled till you get back, probably nobody will report you that quickly. And the city won’t send workers out that quickly. In fact, if you are friendly with your neighbors, one of them may clear your sidewalk for you while you’re gone. It’s only if you consistently, regularly fail to clean your sidewalk that someone will report you.
Yeah, last winter I was hanging out in the Mendips when we got socked with 15 inches of really great snowman/snow fort/snowball fighting snow after Christmas. My S/O told me I had to quit throwing snowballs at him because it just wasn’t acceptable. Yer missing out on all the fun.
I was appalled at the condition of the sidewalks when we chanced a trip into Bristol two days later. Even the steep hills were just iced over with trampled snow. I felt for the old folks trying to negotiate their way to the local greengrocer. The sidewalk issue was the talk of the Beeb and on the street as well.
I agree. I imagine a lot of the “I’ll sue” crap is related to businesses willing to shell out and pay off lawsuits. I suspect if your sidewalk is shovelled to the same extent as the neighbours’ then the lawyer will have a hard time proving negligence; and in northern climates, uncertain footing is par for the course. I too would be reluctant to give any credence to a negligence suit.
Also (IANAL) I understand some reasons why there are so few such lawsuits in Canada - with universal health care, all bills are paid anyway so there’s no medical expenses to sue over. It’s got to be a pretty serious accident if you miss enough work to make lost wages worth suing over; Canada tends not to tack on “pain and suffering” or punitive damages as much as in the USA; and a failed lawsuit most often will leave the loser on the hook for legal expenses - and most provincial law societies are also hostile to contingency payment arrangements, so you better really mean it when you do sue.
In Illinois since the Plat Act in 1818 most streets are in the municipality (if the dedication strictly conforms to the Plat Act - which the school section in downtown Chicago doesn’t and neither did the canal trustees’ plat of the O.T. of Chicago, besides which the streets were dedicated before the enactment of the Plat Act). The sidewalks are included in the streets. So how can the Chicago ordinance require the owner of the adjoining lot to clear the walk? The city owns it and it is the city’s responsibility. I think the ordinance is unconstitutional.
In Canada, there is a certain standard to meet in order to be awarded punitive damages, and the circumstances under which they are awarded are somewhat restricted. See, for example, Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595. What this all means is that punitive damages can be awarded; but litigants are advised to carefully consider whether their claim for punitive damages has any chance of succeeding within the context of the existing common law precedent. If it doesn’t, they’re usually advised not to bother.
Most provincial law societies (Canada’s versions of state bar associations) have no problem with contingency payment agreements–indeed, a colleague of mine here in Alberta pretty much only does contingency work, and does quite well at it. But again, there are limitations–in my jurisdiction, for instance, contingency fee arrangements may not be made for matters in the areas of criminal law, divorce, or custody. Other than those areas, a contingency fee arrangement may be negotiated; although it should be added that common sense comes into play also: no lawyer will work on contingency if the amount in issue is too low to return a reasonable fee when the matter ends.
State legislatures have plenary police power. Surely you know that prior to World War II it was common to require a certain number of days of labor, from all able-bodied men in a particular county, for road construction and repair.
13th Amendment
Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I was born in 1937 and I surely did not know that. But if true, it must have been when war was imminent and justified by the exigency of the situation.