- LIABILITY FOR FALLS ON SNOW AND ICE IN THE WINTER:
- For many decades, Kentucky followed a principle first expressed in Standard Oil Company v. Manis (1968), under which a landowner generally owed no duty to remove or warn about snow or ice that accumulated naturally on walkways.
- Under Manis and its progeny, courts treated natural outdoor hazards that were “open and obvious” to both the invitee (the visitor) and the landowner as nonactionable. That is, if a sidewalk or parking-lot surface was slick from snow or ice — and the condition was visible — the property owner wasn’t required to fix it or post warnings
- This legal framework reflected a common-sense idea: everyone understands that snow and ice can make surfaces slippery; requiring property owners to remove snow and ice as soon as it falls would impose an unreasonable and continuous burden. Over time, Kentucky’s courts began reexamining the strict “no duty” rule. In particular, the landmark case Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLC (2015) marked a turning point. There, the state’s highest court rejected the idea that natural accumulations of ice and snow automatically shield property owners from liability. The court explained that property owners (or occupiers) still have a general duty to maintain their premises in a “reasonably safe condition,” especially when inviting the public.
- That means that slip-and-fall injuries on snow or ice are no longer categorically barred — instead, liability often depends on the facts: whether the owner acted reasonably, whether the hazard was foreseeable, whether warning or mitigation occurred, and whether the visitor also acted with reasonable care.
- Practically, this change means that even if the ice or snow was “natural,” a property owner might be found liable under a comparative fault standard — i.e., liability shared Property owners owe a duty of “reasonable care” to people invited onto their premises — whether business customers, tenants, or other lawful visitors. If a property owner voluntarily undertakes snow/ice removal — for instance, by salting walkways or shoveling — that owner assumes a duty to do the job reasonably and not create or conceal a hidden hazard. Even if snow or ice is “open and obvious,” that fact alone does not automatically shield a property owner from liability. Courts will consider whether the owner’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances — e.g., whether the owner had enough time and opportunity to address the hazard before inviting people on the premises. In many cases, liability will be determined under a comparative fault framework: if both the visitor and the property owner share fault (for example, the visitor ignored warnings), any recovery will be reduced in proportion to the visitor’s fault. What this means for different types of property
Commercial properties / businesses
Businesses (stores, hotels, restaurants, banks, etc.) that invite customers have a higher duty when snow or ice is present. In particular:
- If a business stays open during bad weather, and invites customers in or out, it is reasonable for the business to anticipate that people will walk on sidewalks or parking lots, despite the risk of ice. In such circumstances, the business should take steps (salt, snow removal, mats, warnings) to reduce the risk — or face potential liability.
- If the business fails to take such steps — or does so poorly (e.g., halfhearted salting, uneven clearing) — it may be found negligent, even if the hazardous condition was visible.
Residential property / private landowners
For homeowners or private property owners, the analysis is similar though often fact-specific. If a homeowner or occupant maintains walkways (or voluntarily removes snow) and fails to do so carefully, or their maintenance aggravates the hazard (e.g., poor drainage causing ice buildup), they could be liable
That said, a private landowner isn’t automatically liable merely because snow or ice accumulated naturally — there must typically be some negligent action (or inaction) in relation to the hazard.
Municipalities / local ordinances
Beyond common law duties, local governments in Kentucky (cities, towns) sometimes adopt specific snow-and-ice removal ordinances that require property owners to clear sidewalks or walkways within a set time after a storm. If you live in a municipality with such an ordinance, failing to comply may result not only in civil liability for slip-and-fall injuries, but also fines or citation under local law.
Practical takeaways
- If you’re a property owner in Kentucky — commercial or residential — don’t assume that natural snow and ice automatically insulates you from liability. If you permit others to walk on your property during or after winter storms, reasonable mitigation (salting, clearing) or at least timely warning may be expected.
- If you’re injured in a slip-and-fall on snow or ice, you may have a valid claim — particularly against businesses or property owners who failed to reasonably maintain or warn about hazards.
- Local ordinances may impose additional duties (especially for sidewalks) beyond common-law negligence.
- As in many personal-injury cases, success often depends on gathering evidence.