Slip and Fall Case May Set Ohio Precedent for Establishing Liability

Establishing liability in weather-related Ohio slip and fall cases is difficult. The Supreme Court has maintained a well established position that home and business owners do not have an obligation to remove “natural accumulation” of snow and ice from their premises. Social visitors and business invitees can be expected to make a determination on their own involving weather conditions and potential hazards. We see this in the cases of Sidle v. Humphrey (1968) and Brinkman v. Ross (1993).

Slip and Fall Due to “Unnatural” Accumulation of Ice and Snow

In Cain v. McKee Door Sales (2013), the counsel for plaintiff is arguing that her slip and fall was due to an “unnatural” accumulation of ice and snow. The “unnatural” accumulation is being attributed to improper parking lot design that produced a trough which gathered ice and snow unnaturally.