A lack of an icy condition does not require a person to remove “ice melt” from their property.
In <a href="http://pdf.wcmlaw.com/pdf/Rivers/pdf"><i>Rivers v. Villford Realty Corporation</i></a>, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed summary judgment where the plaintiff alleged that she slipped on calcium chloride -- a substance used to treat and prevent icy conditions, while exiting her apartment building.
The defendant’s expert established that the use of calcium chloride in an effort to ward off snow and ice conditions was a good, accepted, and safe practice, consistent with industry standards. Further, there were no standards that required removing ‘ice melt’ when ice was not present. Most importantly, the expert opined that the calcium chloride would not have been slippery at the time of the accident. In affirming summary judgment, the Appellate Division found that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a dangerous condition.
Special thanks to Johan Obregon for his contribution.
For more information contact Denise Fontana Ricci at <a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>.