Pedestrians Exist Even in Bad Weather
The other day I stepped out the front door of my building to check out the sidewalk, friends was going to come pick me up and I wanted to make sure I could walk to their vehicle. Our condo association pays a crew to come out and create a pathway. Â At the moment I stepped out I saw a mom & child walking down the street, a reminder we do have pedestrians even in bad weather.
– Steve Patterson
My friend and I like to walk for coffee every morning after we get kids to school. It has been almost impossible. We have literally risked injury due to people NOT clearing their sidewalk. We walk in Webster. This includes the seminary and Webster U. Yes, we walked this week in low double digit (13 degree) weather. It would have been nice not to slip.
Have to agree. My unscientific observation is that 80% – 90% of the residential properties remain untouched a week later. I guess that urban myth that you're more at risk of being sued for doing something than for doing nothing still holds true . . . .
…or is it just that people don't like to shovel snow?
I almost want the city to cite people for not clearing the ice. My neighbor at least threw salt out to hasten the melting though it took days longer than my efforts.
The Starbucks manager at Chippewa and Loughborough has a blassai attitude to ice as well. He contends Starbucks (as a lessee) isn't responsible for the sidewalks and barely makes paths from the parking lot into the store. I had to help one elderly man over a patch of ice to get to his car. The laziness of some that endangers others is really annoying.
Well first of all I was not impressed with city side streets, they represented a hazards more serious than sidewalk use. If streets were clear people could at least walk on them. The fact the city finally salted the streets indicates the magnitude of the complaints and the severity of the problem. Apparently many ended up in the hospital from falls.
I clear my walks, but the ice was so thick and difficult to remove last time I only cleared a path to my front door. Liability is a real concern, I cleared my walk and ice remained. I wasn't about to clear the sidewalk and have someone fall on the remaining ice.
The potential liability is a real issue and until I see some clarity I'll have to piss off those who want me to clear a path for them. I go out my back yard and through the alley to Grand Ave when I walk, so I seldom use my own sidewalk.
Whether the liability is urban legend or fact who knows? And if the city cites people that's fine, then I guess they are responsible for lawsuits, quality of clearance etc. or what?
Let's face it, we have too many lawyers, I saw a program that mentioned Paris had 3 times the number of chefs over lawyers. That's more like it.
Agreed about the side streets. After the main roads are cleared and the streets dept workers allowed to recover, maybe they should plan to clear side streets if the weather doesn't look to warm in the next week. I have a nice all wheel drive car with good tires and found it very difficult to navigate some side roads. Thankfully I don't have any steep grades on any of them near me.
As for sidewalks, you are responsible for mowing the grass in the section between sidewalks and roads, responsible for repairing broken sidewalks (the city will go 50/50 for tree damage) so why isn't ice and snow our responsibility?
It is an urban myth; just shovel your sidewalks, please. The sight of senior citizens and children (heck everyone) having to walk out in the street because all of the unshoveled sleet had turned to a sheet of ice on the sidewalks sickened me these last couple of weeks.
Hmmm, you didn't sign your response. Do you have some references that it is urban myth, or you just blowing smoke? Like I say I always shovel mine, the ice was intractable. Fanning School didn't shovel and finally a couple of days before the salt trucks came out they had a bobcat clearing the ice (rather than attempt to shovel). Even then it left a layer of ice behind.
I think you are thinking of the good samaritan laws that were passed so people that attempt to help some one won't be prosecuted if they were acting in good faith. I's been awhile since my torts class, but these are the sorts of situations where someone is actually in need of asisstance and you help. There are also situations that if you initiate help and the victim or others reasonably believe that you are running to get the police but instead you go to the movie theater, you could be liable. There is also a higher standard if you are a retail store and you invite people into your store by offering to sell goods, but you fail to maintain safe conditions.
But basically, as a private property owner, just shovel your g-ddamn sidewalk.
You still have not answered the question. It is obvious you don't know what in the hell you are talking about, which is what I figured. Nor do I need some asshole cussing at me when I post a legitimate question. If you can't answer it definitely, then fine, shut up.
Overreact much? A cusory search came up with this: http://webcache.googleusercont…
I couldn't find anything more local.
Well, here you go, 10 seconds of further searching found the primary source in the P-D http://www.stltoday.com/news/l…
20.26.180 Hazardous sidewalks–Notice to repair.
Whenever the Director of Streets, or his authorized representative shall be informed that any sidewalk lawfully used by the public in the City, is in a hazardous condition likely to cause bodily injury to persons using the same, he shall cause reasonable protective measures to be taken to guard the public and shall notify the owner through reasonable means of the situation and at such time command the owner to repair or replace the sidewalk within thirty days from the receipt of the notification or, if the City has a responsibility of correcting any condition contributing to the hazard, then within thirty days from the completion of the correction. (Ord. 55228 § 1 (part), 1969: 1960 C. § 263.140(a).)
City Counselor Ops.: 9958
20.26.190 Hazardous sidewalks–Appeal–Time extension.
Any owner of such a sidewalk may within the thirty days after receipt of the Director’s notice or, completion of the corrective action by the City, appeal to the Board of Public Service the Director’s determination of the hazardous condition of the sidewalk, or seek an extension of time for accomplishing the repair of the sidewalk, which may be granted by the Board if the sidewalk can be immediately and temporarily rendered safe for the public and the owner so alleviates the condition. While an appeal remains undetermined, the owner shall not be prosecuted and when the sidewalk condition is alleviated to the satisfaction of the Board and within the time granted by the Board, the owner shall not be prosecuted. (Ord. 55228 § 1 (part), 1969: 1960 C. § 263.140(b).)
City Counselor Ops.: 9958
20.26.200 Hazardous sidewalks–Penalty for violation.
If the owner shall fail to repair or replace a hazardous sidewalk, or portion thereof within thirty days after notification by the Director unless the time is extended as provided in Section 20.26.190, or shall fail to appeal as provided, or shall fail to repair or replace the sidewalk or portion thereof as may be ordered by the Board, providing that in the case of raised sidewalk blocks caused by tree roots raising the sidewalk blocks the City must first have taken all steps required by the Municipal Code for the correction thereof, he shall be deemed guilty of violation of Sections 20.26.180–20.26.200 and shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars and each day that any violation shall continue shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. 55228 § 1 (part), 1969: 1960 C. § 263.140 (c).)
This is not Buffalo, JZ, you know as well as I snow will be melted in thirty days. These ordinances are more for damaged sidewalks. After reading the helpful link Jeff found in the Post, it should be clear that in fact there could be liability on the homeowner, especially under difficult conditions with ice, as we experienced. I don't know what the answer is, I know many who usually clean their walks did not with this ice storm. That was in part due to the difficulty of shoveling, but no doubt also questioning whether a real improvement could be made by removal.
As the PD article indicates answers are not cut and dried. So if you are not able to completely clear the walk due to ice or other conditions, you could be liable.
This is hopefully all moot at this point. I am starting plants indoors and spring is almost here. I'm just glad the ice is gone. (Where is the Crocus?)
No, this is not Buffalo. And yes, it “only” took a couple of weeks for the snow and ice to melt. Neither one is the real point. The point is that most people / residents apparently don't give a damn about either pedestrians or their neighbors (which are actually the same thing). It's all about “me”, about when will the city do a better job of getting the streets clear so I can drive my car anywhere I damn well please?! Screw the sidewalks, no one walks on 'em anyways. Was / is it hard to remove the ice this time? Absolutely. I just don't see “hard” as a valid excuse. Either we live in an urban community where we all do our share, or we're becoming suburbia, where sidewalks have about as much relevence as vinyl shutters, and anyone who isn't driving is looked at as a weirdo.
Great reponse, JZ.
Wow, that's a really nice long justification for being a selfish douche.
Have you EVER IN YOUR LIFE encountered someone who had been sued by a pedestrian after clearing their sidewalk?
It really sounds like you're just trying to explain why you're too important to think about the people who share the city streets with you.
Altruism, you died when you got to the Mississippi.
That is a great defense in court, your honor I have never heard of someone being sued after clearing a sidewalk. You're the one that is the douche bag buddy. Yes I have heard of plenty of people getting sued over falls, happens all the time, and unless you have your head in the sand you must realize America has more lawsuits than any country on the planet. But you turn a legit question into a name calling event.
And then you're another one afraid to sign their name. I have seen people like you before, they run in battle.
You're the one acting judgmental to the extreme and with self importance.
Get a life, if you have nothing to contribute that is constructive, then stay home.
Jeff came up with a link to a pd article above, but it's inconclusive. In fact a lawyer quoted recommends not shoveling. What he cited happened in the city, snow over ice. And that was the situation, the potential in making walking worse was evident to anybody who was shoveling walks as I was, did you shovel your walk? I guess not.
Altruism stops at the Mississippi?, strange comment. This thread is becoming too Faustian to suit me. Good bye.
Sounds like many things in St. Louis – the quality-of-life laws are confusing, inconclusive and mostly unenforced. So while we could tighten up our laws (similar to the following examples), the real question remains, what's it gonna take to convince us just to be better neighbors?!
From Clayton: SECTION 505.010:
The owners of all property or agents in control thereof and the tenants or occupants of all premises shall keep the sidewalks in front of and adjoining the property owned, controlled or occupied by them swept and clear of paper, dirt, mud, filth, animal or vegetable matter or any substance or article. After any fall of snow or sleet or formation of ice thereon, said owners, agents, occupants or tenants shall cause the same to be immediately removed from the sidewalk fronting or adjoining the property owned, managed or occupied by them; except that in cases of multi-family buildings with three (3) or more dwelling units, it shall be the responsibility of the owner or agent in control to comply with the requirements of this Section.
From Kirkwood: Sec. 20—26. Removal of accumulations on sidewalks.
It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building, premises or vacant lot to permit any ice, snow, dirt, mud or filth of any character to remain longer than twenty-four (24) hours on any sidewalk fronting or immediately adjacent to his building, premises or vacant lot. Where premises are occupied by several tenants, it shall be the duty of the person occupying or owning the tenement, apartment, store or portion of the premises nearest the street to comply with the requirements of this section.
From Louisville, KY: 97.113 SNOW REMOVAL.
(A) It shall be the duty of all persons and corporations owning or occupying property abutting a public street in Louisville Metro to remove within 24 hours thereafter such snow as may fall on the sidewalks in front of their property. Where the property is unimproved or unoccupied this duty shall devolve on the owner or the agent for the property. Where property is occupied by others than owners thereof, this duty shall devolve on the owner or the tenants and either may be proceeded against for the violation.
(B) Snow when removed from the sidewalk shall be placed either on private property or in the public driveway at a distance not less than 12 inches from the curbing of the sidewalk. However, in no event shall the snow be so placed as to obstruct the free passage of water in the gutter or in the direction of any sewer or catch basin.
And from Lawrence, KS: Citizen responsibilities
As winter weather approaches, Lawrence citizens are reminded of the snow and ice removal ordinance. To make public sidewalks safe for pedestrians, the owner or occupant of property immediately adjacent to a public sidewalk is responsible for the removal of any snow or ice that accumulates on the sidewalk. Removal must be done within 48 hours after the ice forms or the snowfall ends.
In the event that removal of ice is impossible, the property owner or occupant is required to place sand on the sidewalk within 48 hours.
In a situation where a property owner fails to comply with the ordinance and the Development Services Division receives a complaint, a citation will be written. Property owners will be assessed a fine of $20 for each day the violation occurs, plus court costs if found guilty of the violation.
Please be a good neighbor. Residents are responsible for the snow removal in driveways and maintenance of sidewalks adjacent to their properties. There is no formal organization to assist people with these responsibilities. The City would like to encourage everyone to be a good neighbor. Think about neighbors and friends who do not have the ability to shovel snow from their own walks and drives. Let neighbors know ahead of time if you are willing to help. And remember, snow plows will create a blockage even after the drive has been cleaned.
Once again we have to agree to disagree. I realize there are laws galore, for just about everything, not just sidewalks. Still in this society lawsuits are sport. So concern about liability is a valid question, it is that simple. I would clean the old woman's walk up to her door and front sidewalk next door until she passed away and often extent my shoveling beyond my property, but then I have occasionally wondered if I could get someone else in trouble.
I consider it a valid concern, but apparently no one else does. So what, I don't care. As you know I'll play Devil's advocate here on this blog site to help keep the conversation lively.
In this case, when I was shoveling with difficulty I really became concerned. I am beginning to get the impression this is not the place for rational discussion, rather it is full of people taking whose main interest is to take verbal shots at others. Notice there has been very little discussion of the actual liability issues, you come the closest citing various laws.
Enjoy the warm weather.
If the fear of being sued rules your life, the best answer would be a multi-million dollar umbrella insurance policy. You're absolutely correct, in this society, anyone can sue anyone for pretty much anything. Someone can slip on the ice that refreezes on your walk after a day of melting. They can also slip on the ice on top of your unshovelled walk – it's a crap shoot, either way. They can also be hit by a falling tree limb, they can be electrocuted by faulty wiring, or you can hit the accelerator instead of the brake pedal. Pick a reason, they can sue. Consider it the downside of home ownership and/or having any real assets. But there's also a huge difference between “can” and “will”.
Walking on snowy and icy sidewalks carries inherent risks and a duty to use reasonable care. The vast majority of the people out there are not going to sue, even if they do slip and fall – I know that I haven't in the past and wouldn't in the future, unless there were some truly extrordinary circumstances – and those that do sue will fall into two groups, the tiny minority that have a real case and the larger minority that's looking for a quick score by picking out a target of opportunity.
If you're out spraying your sidewalk with your garden hose in below-freezing weather, then you deserve to be sued. But unless you have a mansion, the bottom feeders are going to look for easier scores than your south city sidewalk. Whether they go after Target or Walgreens, Walmart or Schnucks, Metro or Lambert Airport, the odds of getting paid are much, much better from some entity that obviously has deep pockets. You can't just pick a block, “slip and fall” 18 times and expect to collect from every homeowner on the block!
That said, I'll repeat – Either we live in an urban community where we all do our share, or we're becoming suburbia, where sidewalks have about as much relevence as vinyl shutters, and anyone who isn't driving is looked at as a weirdo. We choose to live in the city, and part of its appeal is its walkability, even in south city, and yes, even in the winter. It shouldn't be about the laws or the courts, it should just be about being a good neighbor, even to those folks who live several blocks away . . .
May I remind Mr. Michaud what the title of the post was originally?
“Pedestrians Exist Even in Bad Weather”
I take it you drive everywhere, since you seem to have little concern about the sidewalks being cleared. Hey, everyone can just stay off the sidewalks for a month, right? Funny you should make such a big deal about shoveling your sidewalks, when you're much more likely to get sued for causing a car crash than shoveling your sidewalks.
No I don't drive everywhere, I am semi retired and have some flexibility so actually I stayed off the roads as much as possible and avoided walking as much as possible. Again I am not making a big deal about shoveling, I would venture to guess I do more shoveling in winter than most of the people posting. (If I feel energetic I'll shovel half a block, not as much as in my younger years but I enjoy the snow)
In any case I guess you missed my concern about not being able to get the ice completely up, someone slipping and being liable. The question was partially answered by links from Jeff to the Post, which in fact indicated instances when you could be liable. The article is inconclusive at best, but nevertheless it is a valid question. Now if you don't think so, that's in your mind, not mine. Ice, ice and the difficulty of making a clear, safe path is the question, not shoveling snow. Get it? Read the posts.
“No I don't drive everywhere, I am semi retired and have some flexibility so actually I stayed off the roads as much as possible and avoided walking as much as possible.”
Cool, so what about all of the folks who don't have that option and have to walk to catch a bus into work? Even after the melt, there's still plenty of ice to be found on sidewalks.
It's disturbing to see someone hide so thoroughly behind nebulous questions of liability when the topic at hand is actually basic consideration for the needs of others to get to work, school, and services in urban St. Louis.
And regarding issues of usernames, since you brought it up: I don't know who you are, regardless of your choice of posting alias. So as far as I know, you're just one of the many people who made my three block walk to catch the 70 Grand completely miserable for two weeks. Thanks!
I still think the decency and common sense suggest shovelling. People use the sidewalk in front of my house a lot, so when it snows, I shovel primarily because I want to make their long, cold walk a little easier. I really never use the front. To hide behind a potential lawsuit, in my mind, shows a lack of character and, really, suggests that the person using that as the “reason” they don't shovel because they don't want to or is lazy. (yes, I know that you pointed out that you shovelled).
You could have easily disagreed by by saying you didn't think there were legal ramifications and it would be safe to shovel. To disparage my character, when you don't even know me, when you cowardly hide behind your no name posts is in fact showing you to be without character. How do you know what I think or do? To hide behind a potential lawsuit? what a joke, the PD article suggested that under certain conditions it could be a reality.
The real irony is the big show you put on about being concerned about neighbors, your posts don't sound too neighborly to me.
What on earth are you talking about?
And I have used my real name, linked to a real email account.
I thought homeowners and business managers were grown adults…At my store, snow removal is something that we do because it is the right thing to do…People with broken legs from falling in my parking lot tend to not be good customers in the long run…
With an exploding national debt BEFORE many entitlements come due in the next 20 years, we as a City and nation need a much stronger collective attitude of personal repsonsibility…The gov't isn't going to be there to do a lot of things…To include snow and ice removal off of sidewalks…
And a good set of snow cleats are required as well out there in the big, bad world!
Amen, Robby.
Wow. 2 people. What a vibrant city.