Winter weather brings beautiful snow-covered landscapes to New York, but it also increases the risks of slip and fall accidents on icy sidewalks and snow-covered stairs. When someone is injured in a weather-related fall, a crucial legal question arises: Should property owners be held liable for accidents that occur during active storms? New York's "Storm in Progress Doctrine" provides a clear answer, offering protections for property owners while setting reasonable limits on their responsibilities during inclement weather.
Injured On Someone Else's Property In New York?
CONTACT USOur Recent Case Results
Settlement
Jury Verdict
Settlement
Settlement
Understanding this doctrine is essential for both property owners and accident victims, as it can determine whether a premises liability claim succeeds or fails. At the Porter Law Group, we help clients navigate the complexities of weather-related slip and fall cases, ensuring they understand how the Storm in Progress Doctrine affects their rights and responsibilities. Let's explore how this important legal principle works and what it means for your case.
What is the Storm in Progress Doctrine?
The Storm in Progress Doctrine states that property owners' duty to maintain safe conditions is temporarily suspended during active weather events. In simple terms, when snow, ice, or rain is actively falling, property owners are generally not required to continuously clear sidewalks, salt surfaces, or remove accumulating precipitation.
The Legal Foundation: This principle was clearly established by the New York Court of Appeals in the landmark 2005 case Solazzo v. New York City Transit Authority, which held that "a property owner will not be held liable in negligence for a plaintiff's injuries sustained as a result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter."
Why This Doctrine Exists: The doctrine recognizes several practical realities:
- Property owners cannot control when storms occur
- Constant snow or ice removal during a storm is impractical
- Requiring an immediate response to every snowflake would place an impossible burden on owners
- Weather conditions can change rapidly, making continuous maintenance difficult
Scope of Protection
What Duties Are Suspended: During ongoing storms, property owners are relieved from:
- Continuously shoveling or plowing accumulating snow
- Repeatedly salting or treating icy surfaces
- Providing constant warnings about hazardous conditions
- Keeping exposed areas completely dry
What Duties Continue: Property owners remain responsible for:
- Hazards unrelated to the ongoing storm
- Pre-existing dangerous conditions that weren't caused by the current weather
- Maintaining basic structural safety (e.g., railings, lighting, etc.)
- Taking preventive measures before forecasted storms
The Landmark Solazzo Case: Establishing the Framework
Michael Solazzo's case against the New York City Transit Authority created the modern framework for the Storm in Progress Doctrine. The incident occurred at the Fulton Street subway station during active precipitation.
The Accident:
- Solazzo slipped and fell on what he described as a "slippery, slick, wet tile floor with puddles of dirty slush, ice, and water"
- The accident happened at the bottom of a subway staircase
- Weather conditions included ongoing "snowing, sleeting, and raining on and off all day"
- The subway stairs were directly exposed to these weather conditions
The Legal Arguments:
- Solazzo argued: The Transit Authority should have known this area regularly became hazardous during storms and should have taken preventive measures
- Transit Authority argued: They couldn't be held liable for conditions caused by ongoing precipitation
The Court's Groundbreaking Decision
The Ruling: The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Transit Authority, establishing several key principles:
1. No Duty During Active Storms: Property owners have no obligation to maintain completely safe conditions during ongoing precipitation events.
2. General Awareness Insufficient: Knowledge that an area "generally becomes hazardous during storms" doesn't create liability unless the property owner had specific notice of the particular condition that caused the injury.
3. Impossible Burden Standard: The court emphasized that defendants shouldn't bear "the impossible burden of covering all areas that may be touched by rain or snow during a continuously stormy period."
The Broader Impact: This decision provided crucial protection for property owners throughout New York, recognizing that weather-related accidents during active storms are generally not the result of negligent maintenance.
When Does the Doctrine Apply? The Sherman Clarification
Defining "Ongoing Storm"
The Sherman v. New York State Thruway Authority case provided important clarification about what constitutes an "ongoing storm" under the storm in progress doctrine.
The Sherman Facts:
- Rodney Sherman, a New York State Trooper, slipped on an icy sidewalk outside trooper barracks
- An "ice storm" had occurred the night before
- "Intermittent wintry mix" of snow, sleet, and rain continued until 6:50 a.m.
- Between 6:50 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., the wintry mix turned to rain
- Sherman fell at 8:15 a.m. during the rainfall
The Key Question: Does the doctrine apply when precipitation changes form (from snow/sleet to rain) but continues falling?
The Court's Answer: Yes. The Court of Appeals held that storms need not maintain consistent intensity or precipitation type to qualify for protection. The doctrine applies as long as precipitation continues, even if the type or intensity varies.
Practical Implications:
- Property owners are protected during mixed-precipitation events
- Changing weather patterns don't automatically restart the duty clock
- Courts look at the overall weather event, not individual precipitation types
Geographic Variations: Upstate vs. Downstate Application
Regional Differences in New York
One of the most interesting aspects of the Storm in Progress Doctrine is how differently it's applied across New York's judicial departments.
Upstate Courts (Third and Fourth Departments):
- Generally more receptive to Storm in Progress defenses
- Apply broader interpretations of "ongoing storm"
- More likely to grant summary judgment based on meteorological evidence
- Focus on practical challenges of snow removal in rural and suburban areas
Downstate Courts (First and Second Departments):
- Apply more stringent scrutiny to Storm in Progress claims
- Require clearer evidence of ongoing precipitation
- More rigorous analysis of the "reasonable time thereafter" component
- Consider urban infrastructure and resources in evaluating reasonableness
Case Examples of Regional Variations
Fourth Department Success (Tambini v. State of New York): The court granted summary judgment after defendants provided a meteorologist's affidavit showing "snowy" and "stormy" conditions with fresh snow on the ground at the time of accident.
Third Department Application (Gagne v. MJ Properties Realty): Summary judgment granted when defendants demonstrated ongoing storm conditions through detailed weather evidence.
Strategic Implications:
- Location of the accident significantly affects case strategy
- Weather documentation requirements vary by region
- Settlement values may differ based on local court tendencies
Timing is Everything: "Reasonable Time Thereafter"
The Four-Hour Rule in New York City
Within New York City's five boroughs, the Storm in Progress Doctrine has been codified through Administrative Code Section 16-123, which provides specific timeframes:
The Basic Rule: Property owners must remove snow or ice within four hours after precipitation stops falling.
The Nighttime Exception: Hours between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. are excluded from the four-hour timeline.
Practical Example:
- Snow stops at 10 p.m. on Tuesday
- The four-hour clock doesn't start until 7 a.m. Wednesday
- Property owners have until 11 a.m. Wednesday to clear sidewalks
Special Circumstances:
- Properties with 500+ feet of sidewalk in Queens or Staten Island get additional time
- When ice is frozen too hard to remove safely, property owners can apply sand, ashes, or sawdust for traction
- Full clearing required once weather permits safe removal
Upstate Timing Standards
Outside New York City, courts apply more flexible "reasonable time" standards based on specific circumstances:
Factors Courts Consider:
- Severity and duration of the storm
- Temperature conditions affecting ice formation
- Available resources and equipment
- Scope of the property owner's maintenance obligations
- Practical challenges of the specific location
Case Example (Valentine v. City of New York): The court dismissed liability even though 30.25 hours elapsed between storm end and accident, considering:
- Severe ice conditions making removal dangerous
- City's massive snow removal operations (6,401 miles of streets, 11,420 miles of sidewalks)
- Limited resources across 58 districts
- Practical impossibility of immediate citywide clearing
Evidence Requirements: Proving Storm Conditions
What Defendants Must Prove
To successfully invoke the Storm in Progress Doctrine, defendants must establish:
1. Ongoing Precipitation:
- Weather was actively occurring at the time of accident
- Precipitation was of sufficient intensity to create hazardous conditions
- Weather conditions were the cause of the hazardous surface
2. Meteorological Evidence:
- Certified weather records from official sources
- Local weather station data
- Expert meteorologist testimony when necessary
- Photographic or video evidence of conditions
3. Temporal Connection:
- Clear timeline showing precipitation was ongoing during accident
- Documentation that hazardous condition resulted from current storm, not pre-existing problems
Successful Evidence Strategies
Strong Meteorological Documentation (Fisher v. Kasten): Defendants won summary judgment by providing:
- Plaintiff's own testimony about weather conditions
- Certified meteorological records
- Clear evidence that it was sleeting at the time of occurrence
Expert Testimony (Tambini v. State): Successful defense included:
- Meteorologist's affidavit describing conditions as "snowy" and "stormy"
- Evidence that snow on ground was "fresh"
- Clear temporal relationship between precipitation and accident
How Plaintiffs Can Challenge the Doctrine
Timing Challenges:
- Arguing that storm had ended before the accident
- Demonstrating that reasonable time had elapsed since cessation
- Showing that weather conditions had changed substantially to restart duty
Pre-Existing Conditions:
- Proving hazardous condition existed before storm
- Emphasizing maintenance failures rather than weather-related causes
- Demonstrating specific notice of particular dangerous conditions
Enhanced Dangers:
- Showing property owner created additional hazards beyond normal storm conditions
- Proving failure to take reasonable preventive measures
- Establishing that defendant's actions worsened weather-related dangers
How the Porter Law Group Handles Storm-Related Cases
The experienced personal injury attorneys at the Porter Law Group work with experts from various specialized fields, including meteorology and accident reconstruction, to determine where negligence occurred, and which parties should be held accountable. We also work with medical experts who can examine your injuries, and issue the required certificate of merit. If necessary, they can testify as expert witnesses on your behalf.
If you or a loved one have been injured due to a negligent property owner’s failure to maintain the safety of their property, you need expert legal representation to ensure that you recover the compensation you deserve. No two cases are exactly the same, and it is important to refer the matter to an experienced personal injury attorney. Do not back down immediately, just because a property owner claims the ‘storm in progress doctrine’. Contact us for a free consultation, and learn about your legal options. View the results we’ve achieved for previous clients, and learn more about how we’ve successfully helped injured New Yorkers recover compensation for premises liability cases.
Were You Injured Because Of A Property Owner's Negligence?
Reach out to our experienced team for a free consultation.
Why Choose the Porter Law Group
The lawyers at the Porter Law Group have decades of experience representing individuals and families whose lives have been devastated by catastrophic injuries. We have obtained some of the largest settlements and verdicts in courts throughout the State of New York. We are a state-wide firm that handles cases with a hometown feel.
Our clients come to us looking for guidance and answers. With seasoned trial lawyers, the Porter Law Group has the resources necessary to help you navigate the most complex cases, against goliath insurance companies that will stop at nothing to prevent you from receiving the compensation you deserve.
You only get one chance to hire the best lawyer for you and your family. Hire the lawyers most recommended by former clients and local attorneys, and the firm that obtains superior results.
When you or a loved one’s life has been devastated by a serious personal injury in New York, don’t hire a lawyer without calling the Porter Law Group to learn why so many of our clients are thankful they trusted us with their case in their time of need.
Get Legal Help for Storm-Related Accidents in New York
Don't let winter weather uncertainty affect your legal rights. If you are an accident victim injured in winter conditions, understanding the Storm in Progress Doctrine is crucial for protecting your rights. Our team has the experience and knowledge to guide you through the complexities of New York's Storm in Progress Doctrine.
Contact the Porter Law Group today at 833-PORTER9 or email info@porterlawteam.com for expert legal guidance on premises liability cases involving weather conditions. Our experienced attorneys understand the complexities of the Storm in Progress Doctrine and can help you navigate these challenging cases. We work on a contingency fee basis for injury victims, meaning you pay no attorney fees unless we successfully recover compensation for you.
Remember: timing is everything in storm-related cases, and the specific facts of when, where, and how your accident occurred can make all the difference. Contact us today for a thorough evaluation of your case and strategic legal guidance tailored to your specific situation.
