dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1180
XXXXXXXXXXX1
Premium Member
join:2006-01-11
Beverly Hills, CA

XXXXXXXXXXX1

Premium Member

[Landscaping] Snow Removal Liability Question- follow up

Well gang, I have a follow-up to a I thread created a couple of years back on the liability of removing snow from a neighbor's property.

»[Other ] Snow Removal Liability Question

I was finally able to get professional, legal advice from a competent practicing attorney on the issue. Here's how it plays out...

I asked the question just as posed before: if I remove snow from a neighbor's property (without compensation) and my neighbor or a guest of my neighbor slips, falls, and is injured, am I liable for damages since I was the person who took on the task of removing the snow?

Attorney answer: While unlikely... the answer is yes. Personal injury attorneys typically sue everyone who is even remotely connected to an incident, and in the event as I described, it would likely result in a claim filed against my homeowners policy given my involvement with the snow removal. That does not mean they would win, but it would involve me and MIGHT end poorly for the Good Samaritan (me) who was just trying to be helpful.

She took it a step further and said the same goes for things like loaning a neighbor a ladder. Say I loan my 40' ladder to my neighbor and he falls off it and is injured. Since it's my ladder, I could be found liable since it's my property involved in the fall. That's why loaning out power equipment like lawn mowers or snow throwers can be a serious problem, especially if the unit malfunctions or otherwise causes damage or personal injury.

Again... that's not to say that being sued means a judgment would be placed against you (it very well could simply be dismissed)... but the act of removing snow always opens up that risk, and each person needs to decide what risk they are willing to accept. Her advice was to not remove snow from anyone's property but my own, use reasonable care when treating my own property, and only hire insured snow removal companies if work is to be done on my property (if not myself) or properties other than my own (rentals or neighbors).

So with that said, another mystery is solved. Now knowing what I know, I'm pretty sure this was my last season removing snow from my neighbor's driveways... it's just not worth the risk.
TheMG
Premium Member
join:2007-09-04
Canada
MikroTik RB450G
Cisco DPC3008
Cisco SPA112

9 recommendations

TheMG

Premium Member

I find it quite sad in today's litigious society that we have to think twice before helping someone out, for fear of lawsuits.

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions and doing things at your own risk?

It's winter, there will be ice and slippery sections, walk carefully! Borrowing a ladder from a neighbor? Inspect it and make sure you know how to use it safely! Power equipment? Same thing.
XXXXXXXXXXX1
Premium Member
join:2006-01-11
Beverly Hills, CA

XXXXXXXXXXX1

Premium Member

said by TheMG:

I find it quite sad in today's litigious society that we have to think twice before helping someone out, for fear of lawsuits.

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions and doing things at your own risk?

In principle I agree, but in practice, the reality is that liability is very much a part of helping others out. My coworker ended up being correct in his assessment of who may be liable when one chooses to help someone remove snow on their property.

Right or wrong... it is what it is, and everyone needs to decide what risk they are comfortable with.

SuperNet
Go Ninja,Go Ninja Go..
Premium Member
join:2002-10-08
Hoffman Estates, IL

SuperNet to XXXXXXXXXXX1

Premium Member

to XXXXXXXXXXX1
Thank you soo much for looking into this..

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to XXXXXXXXXXX1

Member

to XXXXXXXXXXX1
We used to own come office buildings. At one point we had a management company that helped us run the properties. Their "Safety Officer" (I think that was her title) told us to not do any snow removal. She said that when we cleared snow and ice we assumed the responsibility of making sure it was safe and they had lost cases when that happened. When nothing was done the responsibility was on the person because they should have known that ice and snow was slippery. They had not lost a case where nothing had been done.

In either case win or loose the only ones that really win are the personal injury lawyers.

dandelion
MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN

dandelion to XXXXXXXXXXX1

MVM

to XXXXXXXXXXX1
I feel sorry for those unable to clear their snow and ice.

Jack in VA
Premium Member
join:2014-07-07
North, VA

Jack in VA to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

We used to own come office buildings. At one point we had a management company that helped us run the properties. Their "Safety Officer" (I think that was her title) told us to not do any snow removal. She said that when we cleared snow and ice we assumed the responsibility of making sure it was safe and they had lost cases when that happened. When nothing was done the responsibility was on the person because they should have known that ice and snow was slippery. They had not lost a case where nothing had been done.

In either case win or loose the only ones that really win are the personal injury lawyers.

What would they do if the city had an ordinance requiring the owners to clear the sidewalks in front of their buildings within so many hours after the snow stopped?

garys_2k
Premium Member
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI

garys_2k to XXXXXXXXXXX1

Premium Member

to XXXXXXXXXXX1
I totally understand that there is liability, but it is sad that we can't just help out a neighbor and not potentially be penalized for doing so. It likely was always the case but "back in the day" we didn't even think about such things because those kinds of lawsuits just rarely happened. Now it seems that many people just want to cash in.
tcope
Premium Member
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT

tcope to XXXXXXXXXXX1

Premium Member

to XXXXXXXXXXX1
Really that says a whole lot of nothing... which was expected. I could sue you right now for making that post. Would I win? Probably not. Being somehow involved in anything can make you a target for a lawsuit. Should we go about our lives avoiding any interaction of any kind in any way just because we could be sued?

About the only way you stand a good chance of avoiding this situation is if you are an official volunteer... as most states allow for legal immunity for those actions.

This is no way to live life. My recommendation is to make sure you have some liability insurance and then don't worry about it. If you want to do a good deed... do it.

Heck, even _not_ being involved can get you sued. I have an insurance claim right now where a pest control company sprayed a home and a tenant then moved in a file suit over bedbugs She claimed people wearing our insured's uniform sprayed the home. During her deposition she stated it was actually a guy in a t-shirt and jeans. Turns out it was some handy man that the landlord hired on the cheap. The pest control company was not even involved. This is one reason people have insurance... so they don't need to worry about lawsuits and can function in life.

Not helping others is not a good reaction to the slight possibility that someone may sue you.
18189353 (banned)
join:2014-10-28

1 edit

18189353 (banned) to Jack in VA

Member

to Jack in VA
said by Jack in VA:

said by battleop:

We used to own come office buildings. At one point we had a management company that helped us run the properties. Their "Safety Officer" (I think that was her title) told us to not do any snow removal. She said that when we cleared snow and ice we assumed the responsibility of making sure it was safe and they had lost cases when that happened. When nothing was done the responsibility was on the person because they should have known that ice and snow was slippery. They had not lost a case where nothing had been done.

In either case win or loose the only ones that really win are the personal injury lawyers.

What would they do if the city had an ordinance requiring the owners to clear the sidewalks in front of their buildings within so many hours after the snow stopped?

People can come up with "what if's" all day but that doesn't change the facts that whomever does anything is liable. If you are required to take on that liability you simply get insurance to mitigate it. Umbrella insurance would cover this scenario. Any good business carries umbrella insurance by default anyways so they don't have to do anything different. Also anyone who has a net worth over a million should carry an umbrella. I know I do!
nonymous (banned)
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ

nonymous (banned) to dandelion

Member

to dandelion
said by dandelion:

I feel sorry for those unable to clear their snow and ice.

Go there and fall and sue them. Never work again. Rinse repeat every so often.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to Jack in VA

Member

to Jack in VA
I guess they would address that if that ordinance was ever passed.
TheMG
Premium Member
join:2007-09-04
Canada
MikroTik RB450G
Cisco DPC3008
Cisco SPA112

TheMG to 18189353

Premium Member

to 18189353
So the real winners in all of this: the lawyers and the insurance companies. Everyone else loses no matter what the outcome, either legal fees or insurance premiums.

Insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank thanks to the fear of getting sued otherwise no one would pay for liability or umbrella insurance.
18189353 (banned)
join:2014-10-28

18189353 (banned)

Member

said by TheMG:

Insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank thanks to the fear of getting sued otherwise no one would pay for liability or umbrella insurance.

The entire point of insurance is the "fear of". You need homeowners to mitigate the fear from the bank. Auto to mitigate the fear from the state and loan holder. You need umbrella to mitigate the fear from yourself. Life to mitigate the fear of your death from your family. The insurance companies have been winning since long before you or I were born.
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

1 recommendation

JoelC707 to tcope

Premium Member

to tcope
said by tcope:

Heck, even _not_ being involved can get you sued. I have an insurance claim right now where a pest control company sprayed a home and a tenant then moved in a file suit over bedbugs She claimed people wearing our insured's uniform sprayed the home. During her deposition she stated it was actually a guy in a t-shirt and jeans. Turns out it was some handy man that the landlord hired on the cheap. The pest control company was not even involved. This is one reason people have insurance... so they don't need to worry about lawsuits and can function in life.

Close personal example to not even being involved:

My dad was involved in a wreck with one of MARTA's handicapped busses in downtown Atlanta many years ago. The bus driver of course blamed him but given the INSIDE tire of her duallys was in HIS lane, uhhh yeah it's pretty clear he wasn't at fault. Four lane road (two in each direction), no center turn and no right turn lane so the bus driver had no reason to come into his lane let alone blame him for hitting the bus.

He was NOT cited by any police but I'm not sure about the bus driver. Fast forward about a year and he gets served with court papers regarding the accident. Come to find out one of the passengers on the bus was not properly secured in their wheel chair (not sure if the wheel chair was secured or not but they were not secured in the chair for sure) and was thrown from the wheel chair and unfortunately later died. I don't know for sure if it was a direct result of the wreck or not but it's certainly possible it was.

The plaintiff on the lawsuit? Apparently some random cousin of the deceased that "came out of the woodwork looking for a quick buck". And of course despite the insurance and police reports stating that my dad was NOT at fault, MARTA decided to alter their story and again say he was at fault (probably something along the lines of "if he had not been there it wouldn't have happened") so he was unable to just get himself dismissed from the case.

It honestly became quite a financial burden for us at $500 a pop every time we had to go to the lawyer to submit a response or a deposition. In high school I remember learning about the "deep pockets" theory in terms of lawsuits. You basically name everyone even remotely involved in the issue and make sure to name any connected person/company with deep pockets since they are the ones you actually stand a chance of collecting money from. In this case, that's MARTA and honestly they and/or the bus driver SHOULD be held responsible for their negligence but including my dad on that lawsuit only served to cause financial hardship for an innocent person.
JoelC707

JoelC707 to Jack in VA

Premium Member

to Jack in VA
said by Jack in VA:

What would they do if the city had an ordinance requiring the owners to clear the sidewalks in front of their buildings within so many hours after the snow stopped?

My guess (in general, not for battleop See Profile's specific case) is they could then "pass the buck" to the city. I mean, after all if Joe Citizen can sue the business because they did clear the sidewalks (but could not if they didn't) then it only seems logical that would be the next step. And/or they would take away the immunity for not clearing the sidewalks in the first place.

Hiker
Zeus
Premium Member
join:2002-10-27
Pipersville

Hiker to XXXXXXXXXXX1

Premium Member

to XXXXXXXXXXX1
There's hope: »qz.com/358929/law-school ··· decline/

Boricua
Premium Member
join:2002-01-26
Sacramuerto

1 recommendation

Boricua to tcope

Premium Member

to tcope
said by tcope:

Should we go about our lives avoiding any interaction of any kind in any way just because we could be sued?

Yes.
said by tcope:

About the only way you stand a good chance of avoiding this situation is if you are an official volunteer... as most states allow for legal immunity for those actions.

This is no way to live life. My recommendation is to make sure you have some liability insurance and then don't worry about it. If you want to do a good deed... do it.

...

Not helping others is not a good reaction to the slight possibility that someone may sue you.

You forgot about the part where you (the one being sued) is being dragged into court even if you do win. The fact that you are being "dragged through the mud" so to speak is enough to NOT EVEN attempt to try and help anyone.
tcope
Premium Member
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT

3 recommendations

tcope

Premium Member

For me, no. I hold myself to a higher moral standard. I feel it's what defines our very being. At the end of the day injury attorneys look for insurance money only. It's what drives the US tort system.

rzaruba
join:2000-08-04

rzaruba to JoelC707

Member

to JoelC707
IN the PDRNJ you incur no civil liability if you are a homeowner and fail to clean your sidewalk/clean your sidewalk and someone injures themselves.
OldCableGuy (banned)
join:2014-12-19

OldCableGuy (banned) to XXXXXXXXXXX1

Member

to XXXXXXXXXXX1
You can be sued by anyone for anything. That's part of living in a free society. If you want a panel of people who decide who can and can't sue then move to China or something.

If you live your life in fear of "being sued" then you're doing it wrong. Could I be sued for helping my neighbor shovel? Yes. Are they going to win? No. And if they do win, then that's what I have insurance (homeowners / umbrella) to cover. The entire point of insurance is to cover if you're sued for something.

I don't get the FUD in this thread? Suggesting never helping your neighbor just because someone COULD sue you? Never loaning tools or a lawn mower? That's crazy, I'm sorry. I have some tools I don't loan out, for instance a chainsaw, because they're actually dangerous. But if my neighbors mower breaks down, I will loan them my well maintained mower, no questions asked... without even a thought of the risk of suit.
OldCableGuy

OldCableGuy (banned) to rzaruba

Member

to rzaruba
Where I live you are required to clear your sidewalk 48 hours after it snows, and you're liable (and will be fined) if you DON'T

I'd rather risk being sued then watching some kid or the elderly slip and fall and get hurt because of some irrational fear of a lawsuit.

pende_tim
Premium Member
join:2004-01-04
Selbyville, DE

pende_tim to XXXXXXXXXXX1

Premium Member

to XXXXXXXXXXX1
The real underlying problems here are:
1. Too many lawyers looking for work
2. Being able to hire an attorney for personal injury on a contingency basis
3. No method for an exonerated party to recover defense costs from the loosing party.

Boooost
@exelisinc.com

Boooost to JoelC707

Anon

to JoelC707
said by JoelC707:

It honestly became quite a financial burden for us at $500 a pop every time we had to go to the lawyer to submit a response or a deposition.

Why wasn't that covered by your father's auto insurance?
JoelC707
Premium Member
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL

JoelC707

Premium Member

Don't know, I assume because of the time after the accident? That does seem like something they should have helped with though. Given how long ago it was, I honestly don't remember their response or if we even thought to contact them.
rody_44
Premium Member
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA

1 edit

rody_44 to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
I do industrial snow removal, Shopping centers and Industrial parks. When snow removal is contracted out to us. We take the liability. Someone falls we take the hit. Its written in the contract and not near the same thing as being discussed in this topic. The contract swings responsibility to the contractor no matter who moves the snow or who owns the land.

rzaruba
join:2000-08-04

rzaruba to OldCableGuy

Member

to OldCableGuy
"Where I live you are required to clear your sidewalk 48 hours after it snows, and you're liable (and will be fined) if you DON'T"

Here it's 12 or 24, but you still can't be sued if somebody hurts themselves. The doctrine of assumed risk still exists, if only slightly.

Commercial properties are another issue.