With the coming of Spring, it is possible that you or someone you know was hurt during the winter months when they slipped and fell on snow or ice in Kansas. The question now is whether the legal system provides any ability to recover money to help pay for medical bills, lost wages, and/or pain and suffering. If you have additional questions after reading this article, please contact our firm.
General Rule

In Kansas, any “occupier of land,” whether a private homeowner or a business is held to a standard of “reasonable care under all circumstances” to keep their property safe for everyone except trespassers. A business, absent unusual circumstances however, does not breach that duty of “reasonable and ordinary care” by not removing snow or ice from outdoor surfaces during a storm or for a “reasonable time thereafter.” This means that anyone visiting a business during a storm or shortly thereafter should be aware of the weather and its probable effect on the parking lots and sidewalks they intend to use.

Case Outlining the Laws in Kansas

One clear example of how the law in Kansas is applied to businesses is the case of Agnew v. Dillons, Inc., 822 P.2d 1049 (Kan. App. 1991). In that case the plaintiff, Agnew, was a customer who slipped and fell on the store’s entrance ramp during a winter storm. The evidence showed that the winter storm had not ended when the plaintiff slipped and fell. The Court also believed the evidence showed that “a reasonable time” had not passed after the storm ended to activate the store’s duty to remove the accumulated ice from the ramp. The Court found that even if the freezing precipitation had stopped when the plaintiff fell, such cessation was brief in duration as the precipitation was falling when Agnew entered the store and when emergency personnel arrived.

In reaching their decision, the Agnew court wrote “Clearly, a proprietor must use ordinary care to keep those portions of the premises which can be expected to be used (by customers) in a reasonably safe condition. However, a proprietor or operator of a trade or business is not an absolute insurer of the safety of customers . . . A business establishment, absent unusual circumstances, may await the end of a storm and a reasonable time thereafter to remove ice and snow from outdoor entrance walks, platforms, or steps because it is impractical to take action earlier.” The court wemt pm to reason that “every pedestrian who ventures out at such time (when the storm is occurring or shortly thereafter) knows he or she is risking the chance of a fall and of a possible serious injury.’”

The courts in Kansas have applied a similar analysis when the question deals with parts of property owned or controlled by a city. The Court in Speakman v. Dodge City, 22 P.2d 485 (1933) wrote “ . . . our Supreme Court has found that a municipality has no duty to clear streets and sidewalks of ice that has accumulated and become rough and rutted absent sufficient notice and opportunity to remedy the situation . . . The general rule with respect to snow and ice is that municipals are not held liable for injuries to persons occasioned by accumulations of snow or ice which at the time of the accident have been so recent that in the exercise of that reasonable and continuing inspection which the law requires it would not have discovered it in time to remedy it by the exercise of reasonable care. The city has a reasonable time for the removal of the snow after it has ceased to fall and may even wait for a change of temperature where the conditions are such as to render the work of removal impracticable.”

When the question deals with someone falling and injuring themselves at a private home, an often cited case is Jones v. Hansen, 867 P.2d 303 (1994). In Jones, the plaintiff was a social guest in defendant’s home. While visiting her friend, Jones fell down a flight of stairs, severely injuring herself. The Supreme Court reiterated the general rule that the duty owed by all property owners is one of reasonable care under all circumstances, to everyone except trespassers. The Court in Jones then wrote “Included in the factors that are to be considered in determining whether, in the maintenance of his property, the land occupier exercises reasonable care under all circumstances are the foreseeability of harm to the entrant, the magnitude of the risk of injury to others in maintaining such a condition of the premises, the individual and social benefit of maintaining such a condition, and the burden upon the land occupier and/or community, in terms of inconvenience or cost, in providing adequate protection.” The Jones court went on to write “In applying the duty of reasonable care under all the circumstances, we are mindful that Kansas has recognized that there are limits to reasonable care. For example, in Agnew v. Dillons, Inc., . . . the court of appeals . . . noted that a proprietor is not an absolute insurer of the safety of the customers . . . We believe that the Agnew rationale and those cases cited in support are supported by sound public policy. Because we have adopted a standard of reasonable care under all circumstances with respect to all persons who are on property with the occupier’s consent, we believe the Agnew case and reasoning therein applies with equal force and will help define the duty of ‘reasonable care’ in future premises liability cases.”

So as you can see, businesses and homeowners alike are required to take reasonable care to be sure their properties are safe after a storm has left snow or ice on the ground. But if someone falls while the storm is ongoing or during “a reasonable time thereafter,” the battle to obtain a recovery becomes a much steeper hill. The question to ask is always how will the Court in your case define “reasonable care” and “reasonable time.”

Drew Speicher