Winter slip-and-fall cases look simple and are not. The plaintiff fell on ice, the owner had a lot to plow, and the defense says nobody can be expected to clear a surface while precipitation is still falling. Whether that argument wins depends on the jurisdiction's rule, the weather timeline, and what the property owner and its contractors actually did. Plaintiff counsel who build the case around hour-by-hour proof usually fare better than those who argue general duty.
Know Your State's Rule First
Jurisdictions split on how to treat natural accumulations of ice and snow. Many follow some version of the storm-in-progress or reasonable-time rule: an owner has no duty to remove snow or ice until a reasonable time after the storm ends. Others have long recognized a more traditional duty of reasonable care that applies regardless of the weather, and a handful of states and cities impose statutory duties on abutting owners to clear sidewalks within a stated period. A few states continue to apply the natural accumulation doctrine, which distinguishes natural conditions from those aggravated by the owner's conduct.
Before drafting a complaint, pin down which framework controls, because it determines both what you need to plead and what discovery to prioritize. In states with a reasonable-time rule, the central question becomes when the storm ended and how long the defendant had to respond. In states that apply the natural accumulation doctrine, your best theory is often that the owner created or worsened the hazard.
Reconstruct the Weather With Precision
Do not rely on general recollection or news reports. Retain a meteorologist early. Certified weather data from the National Weather Service, local airport observations, and private station networks can show when precipitation began, its type, rate, temperature, and when it stopped. Hourly data often shows a gap between the end of the storm and the time of the fall that exceeds what the defendant claims was a reasonable cleanup window. Equally important, the data can show that the surface froze after a melt cycle, which supports a theory of a hazardous refreeze that was foreseeable and could have been treated.
If the plaintiff fell during a period of light, intermittent precipitation, the storm-in-progress defense often becomes a factual dispute rather than a legal bar. Some courts have held that an owner must still act reasonably during prolonged storms, especially for high-traffic entrances.
The Exceptions That Open the Door
Even in states with a protective rule, several recognized exceptions can keep the case alive:
- Owner-created or aggravated conditions. Meltwater that drains across a walkway and refreezes because of a bad downspout, snow piled in a way that causes runoff, or a plow that pushes snow onto a path and leaves a compacted, icy residue.
- Pre-existing ice. Ice that predates the storm in progress, which the owner had notice of, is not shielded by the storm rule.
- Voluntary undertaking. An owner who starts clearing and does so negligently, leaving a hazard worse than before, may be liable under assumption-of-duty principles in some states.
- Statutory or ordinance duties. Where a municipal ordinance sets a deadline for clearing sidewalks, violations may support negligence per se or serve as evidence of the standard of care, depending on state law.
- Commercial entrances. Some courts hold businesses to a higher standard at entrances where customers are invited, especially when mats or salt were available but not used.
Document the Defendant's Response
Request the property's winter maintenance policy, plowing logs, salt application records, and any invoices from contractors. Contractors typically log arrival and departure times, material applied, and areas treated. GPS and telematics data from plow trucks can confirm or contradict those logs. If the contractor's records show a visit hours before the fall with no salting of the entrance, you have a concrete timeline.
Do not forget the snow removal contract itself. Scope language such as trigger depth for plowing, whether the contractor has authority to salt without a call, and indemnity provisions all matter. In some states, a contractor owes a duty to third parties only if its conduct launched or increased the risk, and the contract can show what was undertaken. Our coverage of premises liability addresses multi-defendant approaches in other settings, including parking structures and sidewalks.
Notice, Surveillance, and Incident Evidence
Send preservation letters immediately, as winter footage is overwritten quickly. Request video for several hours before and after the fall, so you can show conditions evolving, other pedestrians' footing, and any employee inspection or lack of it. Incident reports and photographs taken by staff right after the fall often capture the condition of the surface and the state of treatment. For the work-product fight over such reports, see the discussion in our case law reporting on privilege disputes.
Obtain your client's photographs and footwear. Defense counsel routinely ask what shoes the plaintiff wore, and an expert may test traction. Prepare your client to testify about what they saw, because the open-and-obvious defense frequently follows a storm. Many courts hold that winter conditions are obvious, but an owner may still be liable if it should have anticipated that invitees would proceed despite the obvious danger, such as when the only path to the entrance was icy.
Comparative Fault and Damages
Expect comparative fault arguments about footwear, pace, and phone use. Surveillance video usually answers these better than testimony. For damages, winter falls frequently produce wrist, hip, ankle, and head injuries, particularly in older plaintiffs. Document pre-fall function carefully, as defense experts will attribute outcomes to age and osteoporosis.
The most reliable path to value is a timeline exhibit that overlays weather data, contractor visits, and the fall time. When the jury sees a long window with no action, the legal rule becomes secondary to a straightforward story of neglect.