Articles Posted in Slip and Fall

A Chicago ordinance requires that snow that falls before 4 p.m. be shoveled within 3 hours. Snow falling after 4 p.m. must be shoveled by 10 a.m. the next day. The fine for not shoveling is a $50.00. The law is obviously not strictly enforced.

The ordinance also protects those who shovel from liability for not doing a good job of shoveling. Chicago Municipal Code Section 10-8-190 states: “Any person who removes snow or ice from the public sidewalk or street, shall not, as a result of his acts omissions in such removal, be liable for civil damages. This section does not apply to acts or omissions amounting to wilful or wanton misconduct in such snow or ice removal.”

However, the law does not protect property owners who create or whose property creates an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow that is unreasonably dangerous. For example Chicago personal injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer handled a case where a property owner had a pipe on his building that drained water on to the public sidewalk which then froze causing an unnatural accumulation of ice. Our client suffered a broken leg after slipping on the ice on the sidewalk and the Chicago injury attorneys of Zneimer & Zneimer were able to reach a fair money settlement for our clients injuries.

When a person suffers injuries as a result of a slip and fall on negligently maintained property, it is important to establish who is responsible to maintain the property that caused the slip and fall.

In the recent decision Gilmore v. Powers, the Illinois Appellate Court determined that homeowners are not responsible for injuries on public property abutting their house, even if the homeowners maintained the property by cutting grass, watering, spreading salt on the property. The plaintiff in this case was a mover that was helping the property owners move their belongings from California to their home in Evanston, Illinois. As the moving company was finishing its work, one of the movers fell on a stone walkway which straddled the city-owned parkway in front of defendants’ house.

The mover sued the homeowners for negligence claiming that the homeowners should have maintained “their property” in a condition that was safe for people such as herself. The mover specifically asserted that the homeowners violated this duty by failing to inspect “their property” for hazardous conditions, permitting the walkway to remain in a dangerous condition, failing to fix the walkway after becoming aware of its dangerous condition, and failing to properly maintain the walkway on the property.