An Update on #SnowLaw - What's a Sidewalk?

I've previously written about snow removal liability, and particularly the case of Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc., first at the appellate court and ultimately when the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate ruling. That case involved ice allegedly forming from a faulty downspout install, not merely removal of naturally accumulated snow.

In Hussey v. Chase Manor Condo. Assoc., the appellate court had occasion to revisit #snowlaw , specifically the Illinois Snow and Ice Removal Act, 745 ILCS 75/2, and its immunity provision. The case involved a plaintiff who slipped and fell while walking across an area that apparently had parking spaces but also excess paved area, which condo residents would walk across to enter the building.  The trial court had granted summary judgment to the association, finding this area to be equivalent to a "sidewalk."

What exactly is a "sidewalk?" It's important because the Act grants immunity to snow removal efforts on "sidewalks abutting the property" of a residential owner, but "sidewalk" is not defined in the statute. Some courts in previous cases had liberally construed to the term to broadly, and some had not. And a second issue also caused disagreement, in terms of what is "abutting the property." Some courts had held this to extend to walkways within the property, not merely around the perimeter.

The problem with this approach was that courts are required to narrowly construe statutes by their express wording. To quote the Hussey court, "suffice it to say that a narrow, strict construction of the term 'sidewalk' would not include something that is not a sidewalk, but fairly resembles one." The court found the Supreme Court precedent in Murphy-Hilton in particular required disagreeing with and not following the line of cases interpreting sidewalk more broadly.  The court settled on a new bright line rule - "residential landowners have immunity if they shovel the part of the municipal sidewalk that borders their property." This means that immunity would not apply to other sidewalk-like walkways into a property interior.  As a result, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Condominium associations, homeowners associations, property managers, and contractors should take note of this ruling.  Check with your insurance carrier to ensure if any change in your coverage is advisable as a result, since this ruling expands your potential liability exposure.