Blog

Can I Sue a City if I Slip and Fall on an Icy Sidewalk?

Posted by: euser
July 24, 2007
Topic: Minnesota Personal Injury

A municipality generally owes a duty to the public to exercise reasonable care in maintaining sidewalks and other public ways in a safe condition for passage. This duty extends to eliminating dangerous conditions caused by accumulation of snow and ice. However, because our state's climate makes it impossible to keep all sidewalks completely clear of snow and ice during the winter, the Minnesota legislature and courts have limited this duty by imposing various restrictions on the ability to bring this type of slip and fall action against a municipality:

1. Statutory Immunity: Under Minnesota Statute 466.03, subd. 4, a municipality is immune from a claim based on snow or ice conditions on any highway or public sidewalk that does not abut a publicly owned building or publicly owned parking lot, except when the condition is affirmatively caused by the negligent acts of the municipality.

2. Mere-Slipperiness Rule: During a Minnesota winter, a person could potentially slip and fall almost anywhere. Therefore, the courts have established the "mere-slipperiness rule," which states that mere slipperiness of a sidewalk is not negligence for which a city can be held liable. However, failure of a city to clear a sidewalk when ice or snow has accumulated in such a way and for such a period of time as to form dangerous ridges, irregularities in height, or angles of inclination that would be likely to obstruct travel or trip pedestrians or cause them to fall may give rise to an action for negligence.

3. Actual or Constructive Notice: Before a city can be held liable for failure to properly maintain a sidewalk, it must have had actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk's perilous condition a sufficient time before the accident to allow a reasonable opportunity to remedy the condition or otherwise guard the public from it. Constructive notice is notice that is presumed by law, such that the person should have had knowledge of the particular condition (for example, when ice repeatedly accumulates in a particularly dangerous manner in a certain location).

4. Artificial Causes vs. Natural Causes: The above limitations apply whether the ice has accumulated through the natural fall of rain or snow, or whether through artificial causes such as water running from a hose.

5. Contributory/Comparative Negligence: Additionally, a city may be able to reduce or avoid liability through contributory or comparative negligence by showing that you failed to use the degree of care that a reasonable person would have used under the circumstances to prevent the slip and fall from occurring. This may be demonstrated, for example, if you had, but did not take, a safer alternate route or if you could have seen the dangerous condition and avoided it in time.