The Law

Dripping Gutters May Cause Ice by Ron Davis How much is enough when trying to prevent winter-time slip-and-fall injuries from occurring at the shopping center you own or manage? How much should you inspect the premises for hazards? How much salt should you spread in areas that may contain so-called black ice? How much warning should you give customers to beware of dangers that may lurk? At one Detroit-area shopping center, Wixom Village, extra efforts paid off during a recent winter for the center’s owners and managers. But still not without a costly lawsuit. That lawsuit resulted from an injury that a patron suffered during a visit to Wixom Village. The weather at the time of the injury was frigid and snow was on the ground, though the snow had stopped falling. The patron had just purchased a pizza from a pizzeria tenant, and as he headed back to his car, he slipped and fell on his right knee and shoulder. The patron said he remembered that it was not snowing at the time of his fall, but he added that he did notice a leaking overhead gutter. He claimed that the water dripping from the gutter onto the ground led to the formation of black ice on the sidewalk where he slipped. The co-owner of the pizzeria said that in winter weather the sidewalks in the shopping center are salted every morning. He added that he also spreads more salt when needed later in the day. Center records furthermore show that on the day of the slip-and-fall injury, a snow-removal company had spread four bags of salt on center sidewalks. Finally, the center’s property management conducts weekly inspections of the premises. Under Michigan law, a person who is injured on commercial property has the burden of demonstrating that the property owner had actual knowledge, or should have had actual knowledge, of a dangerous condition on his property. But also the property owner must “exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land that the landowner knows or should know the invitees will not discover, realize, or protect themselves against.” A Michigan court hearing the case ruled in favor of the shopping center owners and manager. The judge determined that there was “no genuine issue of material fact” in regard to whether the shopping center principals had actual knowledge of any black ice at the injury site or should have reasonably discovered any black ice there. The injured customer appealed, arguing that “the undisputed facts demonstrated that the center’s owners and manager lacked knowledge of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk where he fell.” He added that water dripping from the center’s roofing demonstrated negligence. A Michigan appellate court upheld the lower court ruling, explaining, “The fact that the injured customer observed ice and water dripping from the overhead gutter…does not demonstrate failure to reasonably maintain the premises.” (Louks v. Wixon Village Commercial, L.L.C. , 2012 WL 2335335 [Mich.App.]) Decision: June 2012 Published: June 2012