Slip and Fall Lawsuit Involving a Sidewalk Covered With Snow and Ice*

The owners of a privately owned three family home were the defendants Nicole Tagamet, Honoria Tagamet and Justino Tagamet. The sidewalk in question ran parallel to the Tagamet's garage. It was alleged the driveway to and from the garage crossed the sidewalk the plaintiff fell on.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants made a "special use" of the sidewalk because the home's driveway crossed the sidewalk. In addition, allegations were made that the sidewalk was not only covered in ice, but it also had a cracked surface with a hole in it. If the crack caused the fall, this could be a classic cause of action for a slip and fall lawsuit.

The defendants asked for a summary judgment and dismissal of the action. To grant a summary judgment the court must be able to hold that the "cause of action of defense has no merit."

In general there is no rule that states a landowner has a duty to keep abutting public sidewalks and streets in a safe or passable condition. The rationale being the landowner doesn't own or control public areas, and therefore there is no reason to impose more of a duty on the landowner than there is to impose on the public.

The duty to keep sidewalks and roads safe generally belongs to the government (city) who controls them. But there was a specific city code that placed the obligation on abutting landowners to maintain and clear sidewalks and to be responsible for any injuries to third parties. If the code was applicable, the plaintiff would likely have won this slip and fall lawsuit.

However, the legislation did not apply to one, two or three family residential properties partially owner-occupied and used exclusively to live in. The property discussed in this case fell into the exception to the city code, and the defendants had no duty or obligation to clear snow or ice from the sidewalk abutting their property.

Further, there was no evidence the defendants made any attempt to clean or clear the ice and snow prior to the accident. This means the defendants did nothing to make the situation worse and cause the plaintiff to fall. Despite proof they usually cleared the sidewalk on other occasions, there was no proof anything was done prior to this accident.

In this case the plaintiff specifically stated her fall was not due to the cracks in the sidewalk. Had she stated otherwise, this slip and fall lawsuit may have been decided differently. There is no evidence other than it appears Mother Nature caused the icy conditions.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants and the action was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish a clear case of negligence against the defendants.