Every winter in Missouri, slip and fall accidents spike as icy sidewalks, parking lots, and walkways become dangerous obstacles. The icy terrain can bring costly medical bills, lost workdays, and long recoveries.

But when an accident like this happens, is the property owner responsible for your injuries, or are you left to bear the costs?

Missouri law doesn’t make this question simple—it depends on the conditions and the steps (or lack of steps) taken by the property owner to prevent hazards.

To help you understand if a slip and fall on snow or ice could lead to a successful claim, we’ll explain Missouri’s premises liability laws, property owners’ responsibilities, and the key distinctions the law makes between natural and unnatural accumulation of ice.

At Cook, Barkett, Ponder & Wolz, our experienced slip and fall accident lawyers know how to navigate Missouri’s unique premises liability rules and will fight to recover the compensation you deserve after an accident. If a property owner’s negligence injured you, call us today for the legal guidance you need.

Schedule A Free Consultation Today!

What Is Premises Liability?

Premises liability refers to the legal obligation of property owners to ensure their property is reasonably safe for visitors.

Under Missouri Revised Statutes Section 537.348, property owners owe a duty of care to people entering their premises.

The extent of this duty varies depending on the visitor’s status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser:

• Invitees: For customers or visitors there by invitation (such as shoppers or tenants), the property owner owes a duty of reasonable care. This means inspecting for hazards, including icy patches, and either addressing or warning of any that could pose a danger.
• Licensees: For social guests or people there for non-commercial reasons, property owners are still required to maintain a safe environment but have a lesser duty than invitees.
• Trespassers: While the law offers limited protections to unauthorized visitors, if a property owner knows that people frequently trespass in specific areas, they may need to take some precautions against certain hazards.

These distinctions matter because liability may depend on your legal status when the accident occurred.

The Reasonable Property Owner Standard

In Missouri, property owners are judged by what’s known as the reasonable person standard. Essentially, the court asks: Would a reasonable property owner have taken precautions to make the area safer, such as salting walkways or placing caution signs on slippery steps?

If the answer is yes, and the property owner didn’t do so, they could be held liable for resulting injuries. However, this is only part of the picture—Missouri law also applies the natural accumulation rule to determine liability for snow and ice-related slip and fall accidents, which we’ll cover in the next section.

The Natural Accumulation Rule in Missouri

This rule generally protects property owners from liability for injuries caused by the natural accumulation of snow and ice on their premises.

To put it simply: if ice or snow has accumulated due to natural weather conditions and the property owner hasn’t altered or aggravated the hazard, they are typically not liable for resulting slip and fall injuries.

For example, if snow falls overnight and a patch of ice forms naturally on a property’s steps, the property owner is not automatically required to remove the ice or salt the steps to prevent liability. However, this rule has exceptions, especially if the owner’s actions create an unnatural hazard.

Exceptions to the Natural Accumulation Rule: When Property Owners May Still Be Liable

If a property owner’s actions, or inactions, lead to a dangerous condition beyond what nature created, they may bear liability for any resulting accidents if:

1. They Voluntarily Undertake Snow Removal but Do So Negligently
   • When property owners or their staff attempt to remove snow or ice but perform the job poorly, they can create new hazards. For example, if an owner clears part of a parking lot, leaving ice patches near walkways or entrances, this uneven surface may cause a fall.
   • Missouri courts have recognized that voluntary efforts, such as clearing sidewalks or using salt, must be performed carefully. If done improperly, these efforts can increase the property owner’s liability.
2. They Worsen the Hazardous Condition by Creating Unnatural Accumulations
   • A property owner may be liable if they create an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow, such as by failing to manage water drainage that freezes or by piling snow in a way that creates runoff onto walkways.
   • This is particularly relevant for commercial properties with heavy foot traffic, like shopping centers or office buildings, where patrons expect reasonably safe conditions. Property managers must consider how runoff or uneven snow placement might affect visitor safety.
3. Negligent Maintenance of Other Aspects of the Premises
   • If the property lacks adequate lighting, handrails, or proper signage, these lapses may combine with icy conditions to create a severe risk. Missouri courts have held that even if ice is natural, poor maintenance may contribute to liability if it prevents someone from safely navigating the property.

What if There Was an Extreme Weather Condition?

In Missouri, property owners are not expected to perform the impossible during extreme weather, but they are required to exercise “reasonable care” when it comes to the safety of their premises.

This means that even in a major snowstorm or ice event, property owners have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate hazards to visitors.

However, reasonable is a flexible legal standard, and Missouri courts look closely at the specific circumstances when evaluating whether a property owner fulfilled their duty of care.

What Courts Consider Reasonable During Missouri Winter Weather

• Severity of the Weather: In a sudden snowstorm or an ongoing ice event, a property owner may not be expected to maintain perfectly clear paths at all times. However, as soon as conditions stabilize, courts often expect owners to take steps to address obvious hazards.
• Type of Property and Use: Commercial properties, especially those with significant foot traffic like retail stores, apartment complexes, or office buildings, are generally held to a higher standard. Courts may expect these businesses to take proactive steps, such as arranging for regular snow and ice removal.
• Availability of Resources: Courts may also consider the resources available to the property owner. For instance, a business that has easy access to maintenance personnel or contractors may be expected to respond more quickly to dangerous conditions than a private homeowner.

Missouri’s Comparative Fault System: How Shared Responsibility Affects Your Claim

Missouri follows a pure comparative fault system, which can influence the outcome of a slip and fall case if both the property owner and the injured party bear some responsibility.

Under this system, any compensation awarded to an injured person is reduced in proportion to their level of fault. This rule applies to all types of personal injury cases in Missouri, including slips and falls on ice or snow.

What Is Comparative Fault?

Comparative fault allows Missouri courts to allocate responsibility for an accident between all involved parties.

Rather than barring recovery altogether if the injured party shares some blame, Missouri law (Section 537.765, RSMo) permits injured individuals to recover damages even if they are partly responsible, as long as they aren’t entirely at fault.

Partial fault does not prevent recovery. If you slipped on ice because you didn’t watch where you walked, you may be found partially responsible. However, as long as the property owner also bears some fault, you may recover compensation.

Proving Liability in Slip and Fall Cases

To prove liability in a Missouri slip and fall case, you’ll need to establish:

1. Existence of a Dangerous Condition

The first element in a slip and fall claim is proving that a dangerous condition existed on the property.

For ice and snow cases, this may include:

• Unnatural Accumulations: Ice caused by poor drainage, or snow piled in a way that creates runoff onto walkways.
• Negligent Snow Removal or Treatment: If the property owner attempted to remove snow but left patches of ice, or if de-icing was applied unevenly, creating slippery areas.

Photographic evidence of the scene is the gold standard here. Witness statements describing the state of the property at the time of the accident can also help substantiate this claim.

2. The Property Owner’s Knowledge of the Hazard

Next, you must show that the property owner either knew or in exercising reasonable care could have known about the hazardous condition. Evidence to establish the owner’s knowledge might include:

• Visible or Long-Standing Hazard: If the icy patch was in a high-traffic area and clearly visible, the factfinder (judge or jury) may find that the owner should have noticed and addressed it.
• Reports or Complaints: Prior complaints or reports of icy conditions by other visitors can support your claim that the owner had notice of the hazard.
• Maintenance Records: Records showing whether (or when) the property owner last inspected or treated the area can reveal neglect, particularly after winter storms.

3. Failure to Remedy or Warn About the Hazard

Once knowledge of the hazard is established, you must show that the property owner failed to take reasonable actions to make the area safe. Reasonable actions might include salting or sanding icy spots, placing warning signs, or barricading the hazardous area. If a property owner had ample opportunity to address a known hazard but did nothing there is a good likelihood that he will be held responsible.

Examples of potentially unreasonable conduct by the property owner could include:

• Inconsistent Ice Removal: Treating only certain areas, leaving other high-traffic zones icy and hazardous.
• Absence of Warning Signs: Failing to post signage warning of known icy spots.
• Improper Snow Piling: Piling snow near walkways or entryways, allowing melted runoff to refreeze on paths.

4. The Hazard Directly Caused the Injury

Finally, you must link the hazardous condition directly to your injury. Medical records, eyewitness testimonies, and documentation of the accident scene can help establish this connection. A credible timeline may show that slipping on the icy surface injured you.

Let Cook, Barkett, Ponder & Wolz Fight for You

When winter turns walkways into hazards, you shouldn’t be left to bear the consequences alone.

Call Cook, Barkett, Ponder & Wolz today to discuss your case with our experienced personal injury lawyers, and let us fight to protect your rights and maximize your recovery.

Schedule A Free Consultation Today!