The following cases involve snow in the context of land use law and disability:
Papen v. Karpow, 56 Or. App. 673 (1982).
Tags
- Icy
- Sidewalk
- Abutting Landowners
- Injuries
Story
The plaintiff, Papen, slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk adjacent to Karpow’s property. The plaintiff sued Karpow and the city for the damages and injuries she incurred. The City’s snow and ice removal ordinance stated that the no person who owns a premises which abuts any public sidewalk within the city can allow snow to remain on the sidewalk longer than the first 8 hours of daylight after snowfall and that it’s the duty of the owner of the premises to remove any ice that accumulates on the sidewalk, or cover it with material to assure safe travel.
Holding/Reasoning
An abutting landowner owes no common law duty to pedestrians to keep the public sidewalk free of ice and snow, however the City does owe that duty and can impose that duty on abutting landowners through ordinance. If there is no imposition of duty, then the City remains liable to third parties. The court held, however that the City’s charter provision stating they were not liable was not sufficient to exempt the City from liability because no adequate alternative remedy is provided for an injured party against some other responsible person. In conclusion, the court found that since no duty and liability was imposed on abutting landowners in the ordinance, the City remains liable and the landowner, Karpow, was not liable.
Easton v. 1738 P’ship, 854 P.2d 1362 (Colo. App. 1993).
Tags
- Public Sidewalk
- Snow Removal Ordinance
Story
The plaintiff, Karen Easton slipped on a patch of ice on the public sidewalk abutting a building owned by the defendant in Boulder, Colorado. Karen sued for damages, and the trial court found that a duty of care was imposed upon property owners to remove snow and water from public sidewalks abutting their property.
Holding/Reasoning
The Colorado Supreme Court has held that owners of property have no common law duty to remove snow and ice that accumulates naturally from a public sidewalk abutting their property. The court in this instance reasoned that if a municipal snow removal ordinance has a provision specifically making property owner’s liable for violation of the ordinance, the defendant’s would have a legally cognizable duty owed to a plaintiff. Here, however, the snow removal ordinance lacked any language specifically stating that property owners would be civilly liable for violation of a snow removal ordinance. Thus, only a penalty is imposed on the landowners but they are not civilly liable for snow removal on public sidewalks abutting their property.