Page 8 - NovemberDecember24 Report

Practice Considerations under the
No Duty Winter Rule
The open and obvious doctrine is a well-established prin-
ciple in Ohio law; it has been adjacently extended with
the no-duty winter rule to further shield premises owners
from liability when an invitee slips and falls on their property.
Although premises owners customarily have the duty to exer-
cise ordinary care in maintaining their premises in a reasonably
safe condition, the introduction of the no-duty winter rule has
limited that requirement. The no-duty winter rule bars an injured
party’s recovery when their injuries stem from the wholly natural
accumulation or not-negligent unnatural accumulation of winter
weather. This doctrine is built on the assumption that everyone
will appreciate and protect themselves against the risks associated
with accumulations of snow and ice. Sherlock v. Shelly Co., 10th
Dist. No. 06AP-1303, 2007 Ohio 4522, 22.
While the no-duty winter rule is particularly favorable to
premises owners, injured parties have several exceptions that
create valid and winnable torts. Attorneys should scrutinize the
precise details of the case before recommending a course of action
in any case that falls under this doctrine. By considering the rule’s
many exceptions, a careful practitioner can discover pitfalls that
prevent unnecessarily lengthy and costly litigation.
By Kallie Hellard Bentley and Justin Lawrence
premises owner. A premises owner will be held
liable for injuries caused by a natural accumu-
lation when it obscures a hazardous condition
that the injured party could not have been or
was not aware of at the time of the injury. Id.
See also Cristino v. Rock Creek Kitchen Bar
& Grill, 208 N.E.3d 1033. The owner’s duty
springs from actual or implied notice that
a natural accumulation of snow and ice
on their premises has created a substan-
tially more dangerous condition than an
invitee could have anticipated. Sherwood
v. Mentor Corners Ltd. Partnership, 11th
Dist. 2006-Ohio-6865. Alternatively, if the
natural accumu-
lation of snow or
Natural, Improper, and Unnatural
Accumulations
There are multiple ways that an injured party can avoid this
bar to recovery. When there is a natural accumulation of winter
weather, for the injured party to succeed, they must prove that
they could not have been, or were not, aware of the hazardous
condition that caused their injury at the time they were injured.
Klein v. Ryan’s Family Steakhouse, 9th Dist. No. 2002 Ohio 2323.
For a plaintiff to succeed in a case involving an injury caused by
unnatural accumulations of winter weather, they must prove that
the premises owner created or aggravated the hazard, that the
premises owner knew or should have known of the hazard, and
that the hazardous condition was substantially more dangerous
than it would have been in its natural state. Id.
A natural accumulation of winter weather occurs from natural
circumstances, such as falling snow or when water freezes to ice.
A natural but “improper accumulation” can create a duty for the
ice covers a signif-
icant defect, such
as a hole in a side-
walk that creates
a hidden hazard,
no liabi lit y
exists where the
injured party
had knowledge
of the defect
equal to or superior to that of the
owner or occupier of the premises Des Amiches v. Popczun, 35
Ohio St. 2d 180. Thus, even a natural accumulation can be action-
able under Ohio Law.
An unnatural accumulation occurs when the condition
is man-made and causes the ice and snow to accumulate in an
unexpected way. Like improper natural accumulations, unnat-
ural accumulations are not covered by the no-duty winter rule.
Mubarak v. Giant Eagle, Inc, 2004-Ohio-6011. See also Lawrence
8 THE REPORT | November/December 2024 | CincyBar.org