1. Welcome to PlowSite. Notice a fresh look and new features? It’s now easier to share photos and videos, find popular topics fast, and enjoy expanded user profiles. If you have any questions, click HELP at the top or bottom of any page, or send an email to help@plowsite.com. We welcome your feedback.

    Dismiss Notice

Does NOT salting absolve one from liability?

Discussion in 'Introduce Yourself to the Community' started by recycledsole, Nov 30, 2014.

  1. recycledsole

    recycledsole Junior Member
    Messages: 5

    I am very new and have heard a lot about slip and fall claims. Wondering if nut offering salt / deicing will allow me not to be liable?
  2. 1olddogtwo

    1olddogtwo PlowSite Fanatic
    Messages: 12,174

    you'll always be liable, simple as that.
  3. recycledsole

    recycledsole Junior Member
    Messages: 5

    Wow. So what about all the kids shoveling walk ways?
  4. dieselss

    dieselss PlowSite Fanatic
    Messages: 11,390

    Hate to say this but, since this is the second time you've posted about salting and slip and falls. Why not just go to work for a snow company? That way your not held liable. S
  5. SnowGuy73

    SnowGuy73 PlowSite Fanatic
    Messages: 24,870

  6. Dogplow Dodge

    Dogplow Dodge PlowSite Veteran
    from NJ
    Messages: 3,699

    His boss would be, but that's his problem, eh ?

    He's obviously been made aware of the hazards of snow removal services, and attempting to get away with being "unliable".:D
  7. snocrete

    snocrete Banned
    Messages: 2,862

    You guys attorneys? Didn't think so.....OP, go talk to an attorney....Fact is, its NOT that simple.
  8. 1olddogtwo

    1olddogtwo PlowSite Fanatic
    Messages: 12,174

    Common sense doesnt cost anything...... OMG

    People are sued happy.....all day, everyday for the hell of it. What you are implying is there is a out.....you seem to have a out for everything in life.

    The real question should be held "responsible".
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2014
  9. Dogplow Dodge

    Dogplow Dodge PlowSite Veteran
    from NJ
    Messages: 3,699

    If you're involved in any way, most likely you would be sued. Will they win ? That question is for the courts to decide.

    I know a painting contractor who was hired to paint a "yellow" curb out in front of a strip mall. The "warning paint" on the curb had worn off, and the owner of the strip mall was being responsible and hired a painting contractor to repaint the curb so idiots (and us) :D wouldn't slip on it.

    6 months go by, and the curb was wet from a rain storm. Lady stepped on it, slipped and fell on the curb, cracking her hip on the "yellow" (hey, biach, I'm obviously here on the ground under your feet) curb. She sued and EVERYONE was brought into the lawsuit, including the poor painting contractor who painted the curb 6 months prior. Since he had no "coverage" for this on his policy, he wound up being held partially responsible for causing her injuries.

    He lost his business, and had to go work for someone else.

    So, yes... people suck (especially greedy lawyers) Nothing you can do about it in this day and age, other than to purchase policies to cover you should someone get hurt where you were last.
  10. snocrete

    snocrete Banned
    Messages: 2,862

    Now go clean up the chit in ferguson
  11. JB1

    JB1 Senior Member
    Messages: 182

    there aint nothing to get from the kids.
  12. SnoFarmer

    SnoFarmer PlowSite Fanatic
    from N,E. MN
    Messages: 9,883

    You know a lot about that case, so much in fact you should be able to give us the names on the case, like Jones vs Timmy's mall, case # XYZ.

    the guy who was hired has , had no liability.

    or it's just here say....
    but their parents do. If your kid does something , the parents are responsible

    DETROIT (AP) -Francisco Garces stopped at a grocery store in western Michigan but left with injuries after falling in the icy parking lot. When he sued, he didn’t get sympathy from the state appeals court: The judges said he could have shopped elsewhere.Slip-and-fall lawsuits, once a staple for injury attorneys, have become extremely difficult in Michigan courts, especially after another strict standard was set last summer by the state Supreme Court. Feet flying in the air because of water, ice or snow? Case dismissed — unless someone absolutely can’t avoid the hazard

    What constitutes "premises liability" under Minnesota law?

    Premises liability refers to the body of law, which holds a landowner and/or possessor of real property liable for injuries to others who suffer injury on their property. In Minnesota, a premises liability lawsuit often arises from the property owner’s or occupant’s failure to maintain the property in a safe condition or failure to correct a dangerous condition on their property, which they knew about or upon reasonable inspection, should have known about.

    if the ice forms naturally you or anyone else is liable,
    if the ice is from a down spout the buildings owner is liable.

    Who is responsible for a slip and fall accident? The owner or the person injured?

    The general rule of law is that the owner or operator of the premises has a duty to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition or at least warn individuals of dangerous conditions of which the owner or possessor of the land either caused, knew about or should have known about.

    What is "comparative negligence?"

    Comparative negligence is the law that governs all negligence accidents in the State of Minnesota. Comparative negligence is typically a fact determination for a jury in which they are asked to compare the fault of the person who is making the claim and the fault for the person who is said to have caused the claim. If the person who is bringing the claim’s negligence is determined to be greater than that of the person who is claimed to have caused the injury, then that person is not entitled to recover.

    Latest Slip and Fall New York Injury Cases – 2 out of 3 Dismissed Before Trial
    Slip and fall injury cases in New York are quite common. They are also among the most difficult to win for the injured party. All three cases in the latest round of slip and fall trial court decisions released in New York are from accidents in the winter of 2006-2007. Two were dismissed on motions for summary judgment by the defense and only one is being permitted to proceed to trial.

    To win a case, a plaintiff must show:

    the defendant caused or created the dangerous condition or
    had actual (someone told him) notice of the dangerous condition (the wet floor) or
    had constructive notice – i.e., the condition was present for a long enough time that the defendant should have known about it and had time to correct it.

    Slip and fall cases –often result in very serious injuries such as hip fractures, wrist fractures and shoulder injuries. Injured parties often think that simply because they fell on someone else’s property which was dangerously wet there must be liability against the property owner. Not so. Not even close.

    Your Own Carelessness

    In almost every slip or trip and fall case, you must decide whether your carelessness contributed to the accident. The rules of "comparative negligence" help measure your own reasonableness in going where you did, in the way you did, just before the accident happened. There are some questions you should ask yourself about your own conduct -- an insurance adjuster will almost certainly ask them after you file your claim.

    Did you have a legitimate reason -- a reason the owner should have anticipated -- for being where the dangerous area was?
    Would a careful person have noticed the dangerous spot and avoided it, or walked carefully enough not to slip or trip?
    Were there any warnings that the spot might be dangerous?
    Were you doing anything that distracted you from paying attention to where you were going, or were you running, jumping, or fooling around in a way that made falling more likely?
  13. SnoFarmer

    SnoFarmer PlowSite Fanatic
    from N,E. MN
    Messages: 9,883

    Massachusetts Snow Removal Law: Slip and Fall on Snow and Ice

    Posted by Peter Georgiou on November 23, 2012 · Leave a Comment

    The Massachusetts snow removal law holds that property owners are responsible for slip and fall injuries caused by natural accumulations of snow or ice.

    In Papadopoulos vs. Target, the old Massachusetts snow removal law – which distinguished liability based on the “natural” and “unnatural” accumulations of snow and ice – was overruled. Since that ruling, property owners must be extremely aware of the conditions outside their windows.
    If an employee slips and falls on snow and ice that accumulated outside of a building at which she worked, who is liable for the injuries? Does the snow removal contractor bear some responsibility? In March, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, addressed that very question in Williams v. Sebert Landscape Company, No. 1–10–1794.

    In Williams,the personal injury plaintiff was injured when she walked out of her place of employment, the post office. As she walked across the parking lot, towards her car, she slipped and fell on a patch of ice. She alleged that the ice had accumulated from a melted runoff from a pile of snow left in the middle of the lot a few days earlier by the snow removal contractor.

    The Court explained that Sebert, the snow removal contractor, owed the plaintiff the duty of care owed in an ordinary negligence case, since it did not have the power to control over the property by excluding people from entering the property and thus did not stand in the shoes of the owner of the property:

    Nothing in the record indicates that Sebert intended to exert control over the parking lot in any way…(and therefore)Â Williams had to establish ordinary negligence and not the heightened standard for an owner-occupier…(Accordingly)Â if Sebert had negligently plowed the parking lot at the Busse Highway property and that negligence was the proximate cause of Williams’ injury, then Sebert is liable.

    The general rule for premise liability is that one of three conditions must exist for an owner/possessor to be charged with premise liability in a slip and fall accident case. The owner/possessor must have:

    Caused the dangerous condition that resulted in a slip and fall accident, thereby providing grounds for an injury lawyer to file for premise liability
    Known about the dangerous condition that resulted in a slip and fall accident and left it uncorrected, thereby providing grounds for an injury lawyer to file for premise liability
    Allowed property maintenance to lapse beyond what is reasonable, leaving a dangerous condition uncorrected and leading to a slip and fall accident, thereby providing grounds for an injury lawyer to file for premise liability

    Ice and snow conditions are a bit different from other standard conditions under premise liability law and may require the advice of a lawyer. Generally, an owner/possessor is not responsible for ice and snow. It is often assumed that reasonable people would either not be out in dangerous conditions, would dress appropriately for the conditions, or would assume liability for being out in dangerous conditions.
  14. k1768

    k1768 Senior Member
    from NJ
    Messages: 556

    This reminds me of something that happened at work years ago (before I began plowing). A few days after a snowfall my parked truck was t-boned by a guy that lost control on ice in the parking lot. The ice formed from run off from the piles that froze overnight. We had the police come to file a report for the insurance claim, he almost went down on his azz getting out of his car.

    I suggested to the guy that hit me our employer and/or contractor that maintained the lot was somewhat negligent for not having the lot treated (they very rarely treated after the storm). He spoke with the General Affairs woman and she basically told him he was an idiot and neither company held any responsibility.

    I always wondered about that.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2014
  15. SnoFarmer

    SnoFarmer PlowSite Fanatic
    from N,E. MN
    Messages: 9,883

    That one depends on your state,
    Some cite that the water draining from a pile that refreezes on the lot is a liability as the pile didn't naturally form. It was put there.
  16. SnoFarmer

    SnoFarmer PlowSite Fanatic
    from N,E. MN
    Messages: 9,883

    Your own contract maybe putting the liababelity back on you.

    Do you say things like "bare pavement"?
    ice removed, etc etc boasting or spelling out what your service will do?
    you may want to rethink this and if your lawyer looked it over you will want to go back and ask WTF.

    Riley was able to settle a slip and fall where the accident coincidentally occurred across the street from the courthouse in a bar parking lot. In that case, the owner of the property testified that his policy was to clean the pavement down to the asphalt, according to Riley. However, the plaintiff and an independent witness said the pavement was not clean at the time of the accident, Riley said, adding that the defendant could not refute their testimony. The theory of the case was that the defendant essentially had breached a duty that he himself had established, which in essence “trumped” the plaintiff’s duty to maintain a lookout, said Riley.

    Many times cases fail because plaintiffs are unable to establish the length of time the slippery condition existed, Thomas continued. The defendant has no duty to do anything until the hazardous weather has cleared up and so the climatological data may be important evidence, he noted.

    Once the snow or rain has subsided, the defendant still must have actual or constructive notice of the condition in order for a duty to arise. The issue of notice is tied into the issue of the duration of the weather because generally constructive notice requires proof that the danger had existed for an appreciable time.
  17. Dogplow Dodge

    Dogplow Dodge PlowSite Veteran
    from NJ
    Messages: 3,699

    Here say, or hearsay ?

    Yeah, I'm going to give out my buddies name, address, birthday, SS# and the address where his 14 year old daughter is having an "un supervised" sleepover, so you can just pop over....

  18. SnoFarmer

    SnoFarmer PlowSite Fanatic
    from N,E. MN
    Messages: 9,883

    Thumbs UpThumbs UpThumbs Up
    If ya can't win the discussion, you can always correct their grammar. The battle cry of the ......looser
    who u the grammar police...
    I've read your posts too and you really shouldn't be trowing stones.

    a case # or a "who VS. who" is a far cry from what your saying.

    ether way...
    there is no way the painter was liable..
    so I'm calling BS.

    cite the case, # where it was filed and the names on the case,

    like, " Timmy trips VS the C store"
    as it is PUBLIC knowledge, the case is also posted on line by the court, for ALL to see as it is public knowledge.

    Every case that I have been named in you can find on line.

    ps the case # is not his SS# that has nothing to do with it nor will it help in tracking down the case you cite. nor did i ask for it.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2014
  19. drewberryfresh

    drewberryfresh Junior Member
    from ct
    Messages: 8

  20. SnoFarmer

    SnoFarmer PlowSite Fanatic
    from N,E. MN
    Messages: 9,883

    yes, yes, and every state see's it different.

    I wanted the case# for the painters law suite that was cited above,

    As all of the cases i have brought or have been in are all posted on line as they are public knowledge.

    Your not going to get the password to their web cam so you can look at their daughters:dizzy:...
    so, I dont understand the paranoia.