The Law

Slippery When Ice by Ron Davis The bravado of a Minnesota native has cost her a chance at retribution for an injury she suffered at her local shopping center. The shopping center is located in the St. Cloud area, and the woman had gone there one winter day with a companion to buy furniture at a store that is one of the center’s tenants. After making her purchase, the companion drove her to the rear of the store and to its loading dock. Both the woman and her companion later said that while driving around to the loading dock, they saw “bumpy ice chunks” on the ground. But they continued to the dock and parked, she added, and she emerged from the vehicle to notify personnel there of her purchase. She said when she stepped onto the pavement, however, she glanced down and “there was some bumpy ice there.” But such a hazard didn’t deter her. She later explained her thinking at the time that “I will put my foot down and see and try to be cautious because I am from Minnesota.” (In fact, the woman had resided in Minnesota her entire life and admitted that she knows the importance of being careful when walking in parking lots during the winter.) She said she then placed her right foot on the ground and felt something bumpy beneath that foot, but believed that the ice there was not slippery. Then on her second step, she added, she slipped and fell on a patch of ice that she said was approximately one foot by one foot. As a result of the injury she suffered from her fall, she sued the shopping center’s owners, the furniture store, and the contractor that handles snow and ice removal from the property. In the woman’s lawsuit she claimed they were all negligent in failing to inspect and maintain the premises. Documents showed, however, that the property had been inspected and cleared on four separate occasions during the week just prior to the woman’s accident. The injured woman responded with a diagram showing the location of various small patches of ice around the area where she fell. A Minnesota court determined that the woman had actually observed the ice and that “the ice on which she slipped was an ‘open and obvious’ condition” so that neither the center’s owners nor the furniture store nor the ice-removal contractor was liable. The woman appealed that determination, arguing that even though she observed the icy patch, she did not fully appreciate the risk it posed and thus the condition was not open and obvious. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, explaining, “The ice was readily apparent and the danger of slipping on patches of ice while walking outside in Minnesota during the wintertime did not pose a relatively obscure risk. The ice on which the woman slipped and fell was open and obvious as a matter of law.” (Weiland v. Centro Properties Group, 2012 WL 3263914 [Minn.App.]) Decision: September 2012 Published: September 2012