Can I sue a business for not clearing their sidewalk?

[syn]

But you took care by walking on the very thing you are basing your claim on: the poor state of the sidewalk.

And understand this: I'm not putting you down. I think the state of many sidewalks this winter is poor - and your experience is just one more piece of evidence to underscore this point. But when you go to court and say that you saw, and then walked on, an ice-covered sidewalk, you may not get the restitution you seek because you admitted to being aware of the danger of an ice-covered sidewalk.

The property owner you (may) wish to sue might not have been aware of the state of the sidewalk. They might very well argue that they can't be held responsible for what you knew and what they did not know. That would put you in a bind.

I'd have to agree. "Taking care" in this case would've been to walk around the obstacle. The next question that would likely come up is "Was it reasonable to consider walking around it?" If this was your typical city sidewalk, then the answer could very well be yes. I've taken alternate (and quite a few times, longer) routes to bypass areas with heavy ice coverage.

Since you've already conceded you were aware of how icy the sidewalk was CDL, you'd probably have to convince the judge that there was no other reasonable way around it and that you were forced to take that route.

I'm not sure exactly how much it would cost to fix, but small claims court can be very time consuming. It can also be a hassle to get the money since you have to enforce rulings yourself. I'd really consider whether or not it's worth it if you decide to go that route. Based on the information provided you could have a tough case.

...because the alternative would be to walk on the road...where, if he'd been hit, or fallen down...don't you think it would be blamed on him as well?

If there's no way to pass through an icy sidewalk, what should he have done?

If he was hit by a car I don't think you can use the same reasoning. It's not necessarily dangerous to walk on the road. Pedestrians always have the right of way. If he took care to ensure the way was clear for what would've been a detour of a few seconds and a negligent driver hit him I don't think any judge would rule against him.

I don't know the situation, but as I mentioned above if it's like your typical city street it shouldn't be too difficult to find an intersection to cross at. I've done that occasionally if I knew I was carrying something important. It can be a hassle, but then better safe than sorry.

 

[Blixtein]

If I were you I'd sue the laptop company as well as the bag manufacturer that contained the laptop.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

An alternate route is not an option since it would mean walking on the roadway (with all the safety and legal ramifications THAT entail). Beyond that, the icy situation in question has been around for days and has not be dealt with. The sidewalks on nearby properties are in considerably better shape.

AoD

 

[CDL.TO]

I'd have to agree. "Taking care" in this case would've been to walk around the obstacle. The next question that would likely come up is "Was it reasonable to consider walking around it?" If this was your typical city sidewalk, then the answer could very well be yes. I've taken alternate (and quite a few times, longer) routes to bypass areas with heavy ice coverage.

Since you've already conceded you were aware of how icy the sidewalk was CDL, you'd probably have to convince the judge that there was no other reasonable way around it and that you were forced to take that route.

The only other way around it was to walk around the whole city block. Even walking in the streets would not have been a feasible alternative with the snowbanks separating the sidewalks from the roadway on this (and almost every other) city street.

I still don't see why I would have such a tough case when the property owner wasn't fulfilling their responsibilities as written in law (negligence), causing damage, while I wasn't breaking any laws (and practicing due diligence).

I'm not sure exactly how much it would cost to fix, but small claims court can be very time consuming. It can also be a hassle to get the money since you have to enforce rulings yourself. I'd really consider whether or not it's worth it if you decide to go that route. Based on the information provided you could have a tough case.

Certainly. The absolute last thing I want to do is go to court; I think such an experience would likely be extremely frustrating and hellish. I'm currently pursuing other solutions (such as the one suggested by rpgr). But I'd like to know what my options are.

If I were you I'd sue the laptop company as well as the bag manufacturer that contained the laptop.

I appreciate your empathy and understanding, but as far as I'm aware there are no laws requiring laptop manufacturers to make their product unbreakable otherwise I think that could be a valid case.

 

[doady]

I often have to walk on the road - with cars going up to 100 km/h - just to avoid the ice on the sidewalk, if it is even cleared at all in the first place. Yes it is possible to avoid one dangerous obstacle by choosing another dangerous obstacle; can you say that my choice is better than CDL.TO's? That is not even a real choice in the first place. One of these days soon I'll probably get hit by a car and killed, and it won't be my fault.

 

[syn]

Here's a gem:



Problem solved, walk wherever you want



I disagree, I think the judge would as well.

People walk on the road to get into their cars all the time. People routinely J-walk on busy streets all the time. A few seconds to get around an icy patch on the sidewalk isn't unreasonable provided the road is clear.

It isn't that black and white.

 

[syn]

The only other way around it was to walk around the whole city block. Even walking in the streets would not have been a feasible alternative with the snowbanks separating the sidewalks from the roadway on this (and almost every other) city street.

I still don't see why I would have such a tough case when the property owner wasn't fulfilling their responsibilities as written in law (negligence), causing damage, while I wasn't breaking any laws (and practicing due diligence).

Well, in small claims court it doesn't just come down to the letter of the law. That of course matters above all else, but what also matters is how the judge interprets the situation and who he finds most credible.

The fact that you knew it was slippery and saw others having a difficult time walking across it will probably factor into the decision.

There's also the issue of whether the owner was within the allowed time for clearance.

Certainly. The absolute last thing I want to do is go to court; I think such an experience would likely be extremely frustrating and hellish. I'm currently pursuing other solutions (such as the one suggested by rpgr). But I'd like to know what my options are.

Yeah, explore everything. There are lawyers around the city who specialize in small claims court...they may be willing to give you a free consultation. They could give you better advice than anyone in here I think. I'm not a lawyer but I have put a few small claims cases together so the feedback is based on my own experiences and feedback from lawyers I've consulted with.

 

[Secret Agent]

Honestly, small claims court should be your last resort.
For starters, it will cost you money to open a case. However, you can get it reimbursed by the defendant if you win your judgement. It may take months until you get a court date.
Assuming you win a judgement, it may take years until you see a penny.
Many assume that once a judgement is given the cheque is immediately in the mail......WRONG.
If the defendant is negligent and doesn't pay, it will be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to take a different approach in obtaining it.
Also many people are not awarded their money because sometimes the defendant files for bankruptcy.

In short, SCC is a bitch.

 

[urbandreamer]

Here's a thought: did you know before you left your apartment that sidewalks outside were ice and snow covered? It was your choice to take your laptop with you thus ultimately your responsibility. If you won this case think about the implications: nuts! Especially in ice-laden Toronto 4 months of the year!

 

[CDL.TO]

The ice buildup on the section of sidewalk was over an inch thick and I would estimate had NEVER been cleared this year. Last Tuesday was a few days since the previous storm, at a point where 95% of downtown sidewalks were clear and ice-free.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Excellent point - this is not an isolated occurance - the stretch in question has been consistently neglected this past winter.

urbandreamer:

I am sure you would feel exactly the same way if you happen slip, fall and broke your hip (or neck) trying to transverse what should be a safe public route.

Of course, you can always leave your body at home. Nuts!

AoD

 

[Secret Agent]

I would highly recommend you file a complaint with the city. They will usually telephone or send a notice to the landlord regarding their negligence.

Obviously it doesn't help your pocket but you'll have to chalk it up as a lesson learned.

 

[TrickyRicky]

You can sue and win. But to be honest I think the city should be responsible. The city administrates the law that forces citizens and businesses to clear city property. The city is the one that has the right to fine someone for not doing so and states that they will do the work themselves, bill them and fine them for non-complience. The property owner was negligent in not clearing the city's ice for them so they should be fined accordingly but ultimately you slipped and falled on city property and the city has ultimate responsibility for it's own sidewalks. Maybe the building owner is a jerk but why is there an overarching assumption that that is why the sidewalk was ice covered? There are two houses on my street where the ice is never cleared. They aren't cleared because the owner was murdered in a foreign country and his estate is not settled. This hardly makes him a jerk for not clearing his sidewalks.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This is hardly a case of an abandoned building - there are 3 businesses fronting that section of the street and all of them are extant.

...but ultimately you slipped and falled on city property and the city has ultimate responsibility for it's own sidewalks.

Sure, but then question becomes - how much of a bureaucracy (and by extension, tax rate) are you willing to deal with, vis-a-vis having every street monitored on a 12 hour basis for ice and snow coverage? Enforcement cannot be there at all times in all cases - the onus is on property owner to deal with their responsiblities, as per the law.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

The property owner you (may) wish to sue might not have been aware of the state of the sidewalk. They might very well argue that they can't be held responsible for what you knew and what they did not know. That would put you in a bind.

IIRC, property owners have up to 12 hours after a snowfall to clear snow and ice from the sidewalks adjacent to their property. Here's the city link http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/snow/sidewalks.htm

So, if it snowed less than 12 hours prior, your SOL. Also, if the ice you slipped on isn't a result of snow that fell in the last 12 or more hours, but is due to melting run-off from adjacent snow piles, likely from the last time the property owner shoveled, you're also SOL, since the property owner can rightfully claim that he did clear the snow and ice within 12 hours after the snowfall, as required legally, but that melting run-off refroze, not due to snowfall, but due to warmer temperatures. The city bylaw says you must clear the ice and snow after a snowfall, not after a thaw and freeze of existing snow.

Lastly, you must remember, that it is the city, not the property owner who is ultimately responsible for clearing the snow and ice. Thus, if the property owner refuses, the city can fine the owner for not adhering to the by-law, but the city is responsible for providing public infrastructure, including sidewalks, so it is the city of Toronto that you must sue. See details at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080215.SLIPS15//TPStory/National "Municipalities can fine homeowners for not clearing the snow in front of their homes, but the municipality will still be on the hook for any damages in a lawsuit"