Liability for Icicle Injury

This legal writing analyzes the liability of Mr. and Ms. Latimer for an icicle injury. It discusses the rule of law, relevant cases, and applies the law to the facts of the case. Based on the analysis, it concludes that Mr. and Ms. Latimer will not be liable for any damages.

Legal Writing & Research Communications Law

Mr. and Ms. Latimer will not be liable to Mr. Coleman and Ms. Fisher for any damages for
the icicle injury.
Rule of Law
In this given scenario, the law related to tort of Negligence and Nuisance can be
applied. Negligence is the failure in exercising appropriate care which is expected from any
person in the discharge of his duty. Negligence generally involves the harm which has been
caused to any person by the failure to work with due care. In order to sue any person for the
commission of negligence, the following elements are to be fulfilled-
Duty, breach of such duty, damages resulting from such breach of duty and causation
of the injury for the act of the defendant to the plaintiff.
Whereas, Nuisance means, which cause annoyance, offence, injury or trouble. It can
either be public or be private.
The case of Klepper v Seymour House Corp. 246 N.Y. 85 perfectly fits in this
situation. In this case a snow mass weighting 150 pounds fell on the plaintiff who was a
twenty-nine years old woman walking on sidewalk of the State street which is the public
highway in Ogdensburg city with two of her children and she got permanent injuries due to
the incident. In this case the trail court gave judgement in her favour which was later altered
by the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division here, laid that Seymour House cannot be
charged as it had no notice of dangerous condition of the roof.
Another case in this regard is Persaud v. S & K Green Groceries, Inc., 898 N.Y.S.2d
255 (App. Div. 2010). In this case the Supreme Court denied the motion for the summary
judgment by the dismissal of the complaint.

Other cases can also be referred which have dealt with an similar issue at hand of an
icicle injury that is Lyons v. Cold Brook Creek Realty Corp., 700 N.Y.S.2d 603 (App. Div.
2000) and Espinell v. Dickson, 869 N.Y.S.2d 42 (App. Div. 2008).
In the case of, Taylor v Bankers Trust Co., 439 N.Y.S.2d 138 (App. Div. 1981)
which dealt with similar facts, the appellant overturned the decision of the trial court and
made clear its intention by pointing out that Banker had a week’s notice to figure out what is
wrong with the building and should have done something to avoid an icicle injury. He was
negligent in his conduct when he did not do anything to maintain the premises as any
reasonable man under his normal judgment would do.
Explanation of Rule
As has been stated in the above mentioned cases, it is the duty of the person to
maintain premises in reasonable and safe manner. They have an obligation to ensure that such
a dangerous situation which could risk the lives of people and could cause some serious
injuries should be avoided, and even if one such existed due to factors beyond control then if
they had knowledge of existence of such a situation they should take active steps to remedy it
and to avoid any harm or injury to any person.
Application to Facts
In the instant case we can observe that, Mr. Coleman and Ms. Fisher “went for a walk
right after an ice storm” as per the facts of the case. The fact also says that Mr. And Ms.
Latimer had tried their best to clean up the area in front of the store and it has been
maintained in a better condition than most of the neighbourhoods in the area. Applying the
law as stated above, it is clear that neither were Mr. And Ms, Latimer responsible for creation
of such a dangerous situation in the first place nor had they notice of such an event for a

sufficient length to remedy it, for whatever time period they had knowledge, they did the best
to clean up the area in from of the store as per the facts.
Conclusion
It is to be concluded that in order to hold anyone liable for icicle injury, it needs to
shown that either the person is responsible for the creation of initial condition or that they had
constructive or actual notice of the ice for a sufficient length of time to remedy it. In the
instant case, the ice generated due to an ice storm which is beyond the control of the Mr. And
Ms. Latimer and they also did not have ‘sufficient length of time’ of the notice of the issue
since the incident occurred ‘right after an ice storm’ and they cleaned the front of their store
to their best of the efforts. Therefore Mr. And Ms. Latimer won’t be liable to pay damages
and hence the suit of Mr. Coleman and Ms. Fisher may fail.

References
Espinell v. Dickson, 869 N.Y.S.2d 42 (2008)
Klepper v. Seymour House Corp., 246 N.Y. 85 (1927)
Lyons v. Cold Brook Creek Realty Corp., 700 N.Y.S.2d 603 (2000)
Persaud v. S & K Green Groceries, Inc., 898 N.Y.S.2d 255 (2010)
Robert Bartels v. Edward Eack 164 A.D.3d 1202 (2018)
Taylor v. Bankers Trust Co., 439 N.Y.S.2d 138 (1981)