In NEPA, snow removal is practically a second job. Property owners shovel sidewalks, plow driveways, and salt walkways hoping to stay ahead of winter weather. Most people assume that once snow is cleared, the responsibility ends.
In reality, snow removal can sometimes create new risks. When someone slips after snow has already been removed, the question of fault becomes more complicated than many people expect.
Snow Removal and Legal Responsibility
Under Pennsylvania law, property owners have a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions on their property. That duty does not disappear once snow has been shoveled. In some situations, the way snow is removed can actually increase danger.
Common issues include:
- meltwater that refreezes into ice
- snow piled in ways that block walkways or visibility
- uneven clearing that leaves slick patches
- failure to salt or treat surfaces after shoveling
- delayed response to known icy conditions
When these conditions lead to a fall, liability depends on what was done, when it was done, and whether the hazard was foreseeable.
Who May Be Responsible
Responsibility can fall on different parties depending on the situation. Sometimes it is the property owner who failed to address icy conditions. Other times it may involve a landlord responsible for common areas or a snow removal contractor who created unsafe conditions while clearing snow.
Courts often look closely at the details of what happened before a fall.
One of the first questions is
how long ice or snow was present before someone slipped. If the hazard existed for hours or even days, it can suggest that the property owner had enough time to fix the problem.
Another key question is
whether a property owner knew about the icy condition or should have known about it. Sometimes complaints were made, previous incidents occurred, or the danger was visible enough that it should not have gone unnoticed.
Courts also consider
whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent someone from slipping on ice or snow. This might include shoveling, salting, placing warning signs, or monitoring areas that were likely to refreeze. The issue is not perfection, but whether the response matched the conditions.
Finally, courts may examine
whether snow removal made the area more dangerous instead of safer. Uneven clearing, piled snow, or untreated patches can create new hazards that did not exist before.
There is rarely a simple yes-or-no answer in these cases. Each situation depends on facts, timing, and documentation. Small details often shape how responsibility is determined.
What Injured People Should Know
After a winter fall, many people ask the same question:
can I sue for slipping on ice? The answer depends on whether negligence played a role in creating or ignoring a dangerous condition.
If someone slips after snow removal, early documentation matters. Medical records, photographs of the area, witness statements, and maintenance records can all play a role in determining responsibility.
Insurance companies often argue that winter conditions are unavoidable. A closer look sometimes tells a different story.
How Slusser Law Firm Can Help
At Slusser Law Firm, we have handled many cases involving winter injuries and property maintenance. Snow removal is necessary, but it carries responsibility. When shortcuts or oversights lead to injury, a personal injury law firm can help determine whether the situation could have been prevented.
Winter is part of life in NEPA. Unsafe conditions don’t have to be.
Contact us today!
