A woman slips on the sidewalk outside a strip-mall pharmacy at 7:40 a.m. Your crew plowed and salted the lot at 4:15. Your contract says you indemnify the property manager for “any and all claims arising from snow and ice,” and the property manager told you to skip the second salt run to save money. Whether you’re paying her claim depends on your state: in Illinois, Colorado and Connecticut, a clause making you indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is void by statute; in Pennsylvania it’s void because the owner told you not to salt; in New York you may owe her nothing at all because a plow contractor generally doesn’t owe a duty to pedestrians; in Massachusetts everyone owes everyone full reasonable care; and in Maryland or Virginia, if she was 1% careless, she recovers nothing from anyone.
This guide covers the law that decides snow and ice claims in all 50 states and DC as of the 2026–2027 season: the four states with snow-contract anti-indemnity laws, the storm-in-progress and natural-accumulation doctrines that decide whether the owner (and its contractor) had a duty at all, when a pedestrian can sue the contractor directly, each state’s comparative-fault rule, and the records that win these cases.
Quick answer: Four states limit indemnity clauses in snow contracts: Illinois (2016), Colorado (2018) and Connecticut (2019) void clauses requiring the contractor to cover the owner’s own negligence; Pennsylvania (Act 68, 2022) voids them when the owner told the contractor not to perform. Massachusetts’ bill is pending. Everywhere else, the indemnity clause in your contract is probably enforceable as written. Whether there’s a claim at all turns on doctrine: storm-in-progress (NY, NJ, CT, DE, IA, KS, RI), natural accumulation (IL, OH, MO, TX), hills and ridges (PA), or full reasonable care (MA and most others). Contributory negligence states (AL, MD, NC, VA, DC) bar any plaintiff who was partly at fault. In New York and Michigan a pedestrian generally can’t sue the contractor for failing to do what the contract required. Everywhere, time-stamped service logs and photos are the defense.
On this page
How a Snow Claim Works
Every slip-and-fall on snow or ice is a negligence claim with three possible defendants: the property owner (duty to invitees under premises liability), the property manager (if it controls the premises), and the snow contractor (duty to perform its work with reasonable care). The plaintiff’s lawyer names all three. What happens next:
- Duty. The state’s doctrine decides whether the owner had to do anything at the time of the fall. If the storm was still in progress in a storm-in-progress state, or the snow was a natural accumulation in a no-duty state, the owner wins and so does a contractor that didn’t make things worse.
- Contractor duty to the pedestrian. In most states the contractor is liable for negligent work it actually did (the plow ridge across the crosswalk, the pile that drains across the walkway and refreezes). Whether it’s liable for work it didn’t do (it wasn’t called out, the trigger depth wasn’t reached, the owner said hold off) depends on the contract and, in New York and Michigan, on a rule that contract breaches aren’t torts against the public.
- Fault allocation. The jury splits fault among plaintiff, owner and contractor. Contributory negligence states bar any partly-at-fault plaintiff; modified comparative states bar one at 50% or 51%; pure comparative states (New York, California, Washington and others) let a 90%-at-fault plaintiff recover 10%.
- Tender and indemnity. The owner’s carrier tenders the claim to the contractor under the indemnity clause and the additional-insured endorsement. This is where most contractor losses actually happen: the contractor pays for the owner’s negligence because the contract says so. In four states the statute limits that.
The Snow Anti-Indemnity Laws
All four enacted laws grew from the snow industry’s model bill, which voids clauses requiring a snow and ice contractor to indemnify, defend or hold harmless the property owner for the owner’s own negligence. They apply to contracts signed after the effective date.
| State | Year | Law | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | 2016 | Snow Removal Service Liability Limitation Act (815 ILCS 675) | Voids indemnity/defense for owner’s own negligence |
| Colorado | Aug. 8, 2018 | Snow Removal Service Liability Limitation Act (C.R.S. § 13-21-129) | Voids indemnity both ways; public roads, utilities, airports excepted |
| Connecticut | 2019 | Snow and ice removal contract law | Voids indemnity for owner’s own negligence |
| Pennsylvania | 2022 | Act 68 (HB 1665) | Voids indemnity where owner directed contractor not to perform |
| Massachusetts | Pending | S.1370 (2025–2026) | Model anti-indemnity bill; stalled in prior sessions |
| New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin | Pending / introduced | Model bills in prior sessions | None enacted as of October 2026 |
The Doctrines That Decide the Duty
| Doctrine | States | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Storm-in-progress / continuing storm | NY, NJ (commercial, 2021), CT, DE, IA, KS, RI | No duty to clear while precipitation falls; reasonable time after |
| Natural accumulation (no duty) | IL, OH, MO, TX (natural ice) | No duty for natural snow and ice; liability for unnatural accumulations |
| Hills and ridges | PA | No liability for general slipperiness; plaintiff must prove ridges |
| Full duty of reasonable care | MA (Papadopoulos), most other states | Natural snow treated like any hazard; timing goes to reasonableness |
| Contributory negligence | AL, MD, NC, VA, DC | Any plaintiff fault bars recovery |
| Contractor owes no duty to pedestrians (with exceptions) | NY (Espinal), MI (Fultz) | Breach of the plow contract is owed to the owner, not the public |
| Statutory heightened duty | WI safe-place statute; DC 8-hour sidewalk rule; NYC § 7-210 | Statute sets the standard of care |
What to Fix in Your Contract
- Indemnity: change “any and all claims arising from” to “to the extent caused by the negligence of Contractor.” In Illinois, Colorado and Connecticut the broader clause is void anyway; everywhere else it’s enforceable and is the single biggest source of contractor losses.
- Additional insured: if you must name the owner, limit the endorsement to liability “caused in whole or in part by” your acts (ISO CG 20 10 04 13 or later) rather than a blanket endorsement, and match it to the indemnity.
- Trigger and scope: state the trigger depth (1”, 2”), whether you’re responsible for ice and refreeze without new snow, which areas you service (lot, walks, entrances, stairs), and that you aren’t responsible for areas outside the site map. A per-push contract with no trigger for ice leaves refreeze on the owner.
- Owner instructions: require any instruction to hold off, skip salt or reduce scope to be in writing (text or email counts) and state that the owner assumes the risk of those decisions. In Pennsylvania that record triggers Act 68; everywhere it’s your causation defense.
- Notice of conditions: require the owner to notify you of refreeze, drainage problems and complaints, and to inspect between visits. Owners are on site; you aren’t.
- Zero-tolerance and “bare pavement” promises: don’t make them. They create a contractual standard of perfection that a plaintiff’s lawyer will read to the jury.
- Displacement: in New York, a comprehensive contract that takes over the owner’s entire duty to maintain the premises exposes you to pedestrian suits under Espinal; a defined-scope plowing contract doesn’t.
The Records That Win
Snow claims are filed months after the fall, and the question is always what the site looked like at a specific minute. The contractor that can show it wins most of them. What to capture on every visit: arrival and departure time with GPS location; what was done (plow, shovel, salt, sand) and where, by area; material and quantity applied; site photos at departure with timestamps and the condition of walks and entrances; weather at the time (start and stop of precipitation from a third-party source, which is what the storm-in-progress doctrine turns on); and any owner instruction to hold off. Keep it for at least the longest personal-injury statute of limitations in your service area plus a year (three years covers most states; Maine is six, Minnesota six for some claims). Paper logs filled in at the end of a shift are weak evidence; app-based logs stamped by GPS and the server at the time of service are strong. See GPS tracking laws for technicians for the rules on tracking crews.
What Changed Recently
Recent changes: Pennsylvania’s Act 68 (2022) took effect for new contracts; HB 1541 (2025) would broaden it. Massachusetts’ S.1370 was refiled for the 2025–2026 session after stalling in prior sessions. New Jersey adopted the ongoing storm rule for commercial owners (Pareja, 2021). Michigan reformed open-and-obvious (Kandil-Elsayed, 2023), making owner liability for snow and ice more likely. Florida moved to modified comparative fault (2023). West Virginia’s HB 2960 (2025) opened a pilot for private contractors to plow secondary state roads in two counties. Snow contractors in Massachusetts and other Northeast states reported insurer withdrawals and rate increases through 2025, driven by slip-and-fall settlements.
State-by-State Breakdown
Red chips mark states with a snow-contract anti-indemnity statute; amber marks states with a snow-specific liability doctrine (storm-in-progress, natural accumulation, hills and ridges, the Papadopoulos full-duty rule, contract-based contractor duty, the safe-place statute) or contributory negligence; grey marks states with ordinary premises liability and no snow-specific rule, including the Sun Belt states where snow is rare. Each block gives the owner’s duty, the contractor’s exposure, the fault system and the indemnity rule.
Jump to your state
Alabama Contributory Negligence
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees; no duty to warn of open and obvious conditions, and Alabama courts treat snow and ice the invitee can see as open and obvious.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance.
Fault system: contributory negligence: a plaintiff who was even slightly at fault (walking in a hurry, wrong shoes, ignoring a cone) recovers nothing.
Snow is rare, but the ice storms that hit (2021’s Winter Storm Uri across Texas and the South is the reference event) produce slip-and-fall claims under ordinary premises-liability rules. Alabama’s contributory negligence rule is the strongest defense in the country for a contractor.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Alaska General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Arizona General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Snow is a Flagstaff, Prescott and White Mountains issue; elsewhere it’s an occasional ice event.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Arkansas General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Snow is rare, but the ice storms that hit (2021’s Winter Storm Uri across Texas and the South is the reference event) produce slip-and-fall claims under ordinary premises-liability rules.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
California General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Snow liability is a mountain-county issue (Tahoe, Mammoth, Big Bear); Civil Code § 846 recreational-use immunity doesn’t cover commercial lots.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Colorado Snow Anti-Indemnity Law (2018)
Colorado General Assembly, SB 18-062
Snow contract law: The Snow Removal Service Liability Limitation Act (SB 18-062, C.R.S. § 13-21-129, effective August 8, 2018) voids any provision in a snow or ice removal contract signed on or after that date that requires one party to indemnify, hold harmless or defend the other against claims arising from the other party’s own acts or omissions. It runs both ways (owner and contractor). Exceptions: public roads, public utilities, public and commercial airports, and insurance policies, surety bonds and workers’ comp.
Owner’s duty: The Premises Liability Act (C.R.S. § 13-21-115) sets the duty owed by a “landowner,” a term Colorado courts read to include anyone legally responsible for the condition of the property, which can include a snow contractor in control of the lot.
Contractor exposure: A contractor in control of the premises may be sued as a “landowner” under the Act rather than in ordinary negligence; outside that, ordinary negligence for the work performed.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Additional-insured requirements aren’t indemnity agreements, so the Act likely doesn’t stop an owner from requiring the contractor to name it on the GL policy; expect property managers to lean on that instead.
Connecticut Snow Anti-Indemnity Law (2019)
Snow contract law: Connecticut’s 2019 law, built on the snow industry’s model bill, voids provisions in snow and ice removal contracts that require the contractor to indemnify the property owner for the owner’s own negligence. Two-year statute of limitations for personal injury.
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care, subject to the ongoing-storm rule (Kraus v. Newton, 1989): an owner may wait until a reasonable time after the storm ends to clear snow and ice, absent unusual circumstances. Many municipalities shift sidewalk liability to the abutting owner by ordinance (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-163a).
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance; contractors are often named alongside the owner because the ordinance makes the abutting owner (and its contractor) the responsible party.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Delaware Continuing Storm Doctrine
Owner’s duty: The continuing storm doctrine (Young v. Saroukos, 1963): a business owner may wait until the storm ends before clearing walkways, then has a reasonable time to act.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance after the storm ends; the doctrine shields work not yet due.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
District of Columbia Contributory Negligence + Sidewalk Statute
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees. D.C. Code § 9-601 requires owners of commercial and multi-unit property to clear abutting public sidewalks within 8 daylight hours after snowfall ends (fines enforced by DPW); single-family owners have the same duty with lighter penalties.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance; the 8-hour statute is the standard of care a plaintiff will use.
Fault system: contributory negligence: a plaintiff who was even slightly at fault (walking in a hurry, wrong shoes, ignoring a cone) recovers nothing.
DC’s contributory negligence rule bars a plaintiff who was even slightly careless.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Florida General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Florida moved from pure to modified comparative fault (51% bar) in March 2023 (HB 837). Snow is essentially nonexistent; the rule matters for wet-floor and ice-machine claims.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Georgia General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Snow is rare, but the ice storms that hit (2021’s Winter Storm Uri across Texas and the South is the reference event) produce slip-and-fall claims under ordinary premises-liability rules.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Hawaii General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Snow only on the summits; included for completeness.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Idaho General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Illinois Snow Anti-Indemnity Law + Residential Immunity
Snow contract law: The Snow Removal Service Liability Limitation Act (815 ILCS 675, 2016) voids snow and ice contract provisions requiring a contractor to indemnify, hold harmless or defend the owner for the owner’s negligence. Illinois was the first state.
Owner’s duty: The natural accumulation rule: no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice; liability only for unnatural accumulations (from a defect, a downspout, a plow pile that melts and refreezes) or for undertaking removal and doing it negligently. The Snow and Ice Removal Act (745 ILCS 75) immunizes residential owners and occupants from liability for sidewalk snow removal unless willful or wanton.
Contractor exposure: Liable only for creating or aggravating an unnatural accumulation, or for negligent performance of what the contract required; the natural accumulation rule applies to contractors too.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Plow-pile placement is the most common Illinois claim: piles placed uphill of walkways create the unnatural melt-and-refreeze accumulation the rule doesn’t protect.
Indiana General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees; Indiana hasn’t adopted a strict natural-accumulation rule, so owners can be liable for failing to clear within a reasonable time.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Iowa Continuing Storm Doctrine
Owner’s duty: The continuing storm doctrine (Reuter v. Iowa Trust & Savings, 1953): no duty to remove snow and ice while a storm continues; reasonable time after it ends. Iowa courts apply it to businesses and landlords.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance; same doctrine protects the contractor during the storm.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Many Iowa cities (Iowa City, Des Moines) require full-width sidewalk clearing within 24–48 hours by ordinance.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Kansas Storm-in-Progress Rule
Owner’s duty: The storm-in-progress rule (Agnew v. Dillons, 1991): an owner may wait until the storm ends and then has a reasonable time to remove snow and ice.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance after the storm.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Kentucky Natural Outdoor Hazards (Modified)
Owner’s duty: Kentucky long treated natural accumulations of snow and ice as obvious hazards the owner needn’t remedy; Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh (2010) and Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals (2013) folded open-and-obvious into comparative fault, so an owner can be partly liable if it should have anticipated the harm.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance and for creating an unnatural hazard.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Louisiana General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Snow is rare, but the ice storms that hit (2021’s Winter Storm Uri across Texas and the South is the reference event) produce slip-and-fall claims under ordinary premises-liability rules.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Maine General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine. Portland and other cities require sidewalk clearing within 24 hours after a storm ends.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Maryland Contributory Negligence
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, with a reasonable time after the storm ends to clear (Moore v. American Stores, 1933). Montgomery County, Baltimore and other jurisdictions require sidewalk clearing within 24–48 hours by ordinance.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance.
Fault system: contributory negligence: a plaintiff who was even slightly at fault (walking in a hurry, wrong shoes, ignoring a cone) recovers nothing.
Maryland’s contributory negligence rule (reaffirmed by the Court of Appeals in 2013) bars a plaintiff who was even 1% at fault, which is why Maryland snow claims settle low. The assumption of risk defense is also strong for a pedestrian who chose to walk on visible ice.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Massachusetts Papadopoulos: Full Duty of Care
Owner’s duty: Papadopoulos v. Target Corp. (2010) abolished the natural-accumulation distinction: owners owe the same duty of reasonable care for natural snow and ice as for any other hazard, including clearing within a reasonable time. No storm-in-progress safe harbor by doctrine, though timing still matters to reasonableness.
Contractor exposure: The strictest exposure in the Northeast; contractors are routinely named. S.1370 (2025–2026 session), a snow anti-indemnity bill, was reported favorably in prior sessions but stalled in Senate Ways and Means.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Insurers have pulled back from Massachusetts snow contractors since 2023; premiums and minimum-premium policies reflect Papadopoulos.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Michigan Contract-Based Duty; Open-and-Obvious Reformed
Owner’s duty: Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil (2023) eliminated open-and-obvious as a bar to the owner’s duty and moved it into comparative fault, so snow-and-ice claims against owners survive more often. Owners owe invitees reasonable care, including reasonable steps to reduce snow and ice hazards.
Contractor exposure: Under Fultz v. Union-Commerce Associates (2004) and Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling (2011), a pedestrian can sue the contractor only if it breached a duty separate and distinct from the contract (for example, creating a new hazard). Failure to plow as the contract required is a breach of contract owed to the owner, not a tort owed to the pedestrian.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Michigan’s comparative fault bar is 51% for non-economic damages only; economic damages are recoverable regardless.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Minnesota Reasonable Time After Storm
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care, including a reasonable time after the storm ends to remove snow and ice (Niemann v. Northwestern College, 1986); an owner isn’t required to clear continuously during a storm.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance; same timing rule.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Minneapolis and St. Paul require sidewalk clearing within 24 hours (residential) or 4 daylight hours (commercial) after snow stops.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Mississippi General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Snow is rare, but the ice storms that hit (2021’s Winter Storm Uri across Texas and the South is the reference event) produce slip-and-fall claims under ordinary premises-liability rules.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Missouri Natural Accumulation (General Rule)
Owner’s duty: The general rule: no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice that are as obvious to the invitee as to the owner, unless the owner agreed by contract or course of conduct to remove it, or the condition is unnatural.
Contractor exposure: A contractor that undertakes removal can be liable for doing it negligently; the owner can be liable by assuming the duty through a course of conduct (regular plowing).
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Montana General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Nebraska General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees; Omaha and Lincoln require sidewalk clearing within 24 hours.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Nevada General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Snow liability is a Reno, Tahoe and Elko issue.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
New Hampshire General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
New Jersey Ongoing Storm Rule (2021); No Residential Sidewalk Duty
Owner’s duty: Pareja v. Princeton International Properties (2021) adopted the ongoing storm rule for commercial landowners: no duty to clear while precipitation is falling, unless the owner’s actions increased the risk or there was a pre-existing hazard. Commercial owners must clear abutting public sidewalks (Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, 1981); residential owners have no sidewalk duty (Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, 2011) unless they make it worse.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance. Snow anti-indemnity bills have been introduced in several sessions without passing.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
New Mexico General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Snow is a Santa Fe, Taos and Ruidoso issue.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
New York Storm in Progress; Espinal Contractor Rule
Owner’s duty: The storm-in-progress rule (Solazzo v. New York City Transit Authority, 2005): no liability for accidents during a storm or within a reasonable time after it ends. NYC Administrative Code § 7-210 makes owners of commercial and larger buildings liable for abutting sidewalks; owners of one- to three-family owner-occupied homes are exempt.
Contractor exposure: Under Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors (2002), a snow contractor owes no duty to third parties unless it (1) launched a force or instrument of harm (created or worsened the hazard), (2) the plaintiff detrimentally relied on its performance, or (3) it entirely displaced the owner’s duty to maintain the premises. A limited plowing contract usually doesn’t displace the owner’s duty; a comprehensive one may.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Snow anti-indemnity bills have been filed in Albany repeatedly without passing. New York’s pure comparative fault means plaintiffs recover something in nearly every case.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
North Carolina Contributory Negligence
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees; no duty to warn of obvious hazards, and snow-covered surfaces the plaintiff saw are typically obvious.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance.
Fault system: contributory negligence: a plaintiff who was even slightly at fault (walking in a hurry, wrong shoes, ignoring a cone) recovers nothing.
North Carolina’s contributory negligence rule bars recovery by a plaintiff who was even slightly at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
North Dakota General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Ohio Natural Accumulation Rule
Owner’s duty: The no-duty rule for natural accumulations (Brinkman v. Ross, 1993): an owner owes no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice, which are open and obvious. Liability only for unnatural accumulations or when the owner had superior knowledge of a hidden hazard.
Contractor exposure: Liable only for creating or aggravating an unnatural accumulation (plow piles that melt and refreeze, salt applied unevenly so it creates a slick); the no-duty rule extends to contractors.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Oklahoma General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Snow is rare, but the ice storms that hit (2021’s Winter Storm Uri across Texas and the South is the reference event) produce slip-and-fall claims under ordinary premises-liability rules.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Oregon General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Snow liability is mainly a Bend, Mt. Hood and eastern Oregon issue; Portland ice storms produce periodic claims.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Pennsylvania Act 68 (2022) + Hills and Ridges
Snow contract law: Act 68 of 2022 (HB 1665, amending the 1970 indemnification act) voids clauses requiring a snow contractor to indemnify or insure the property owner for the owner’s negligence where the owner affirmatively directed the contractor not to perform (no salt, no plow, wait until later). Narrower than the Illinois and Colorado laws: it targets the “don’t salt, but you’re liable” problem. HB 1541 (2025) would broaden it.
Owner’s duty: The hills and ridges doctrine: no liability for generally slippery conditions during or shortly after a storm; a plaintiff must show the snow or ice had accumulated in ridges or elevations of a size and character that unreasonably obstructed travel, that the owner knew or should have known, and that the ridge caused the fall. The doctrine doesn’t apply to localized ice from a non-weather cause (a leak, a downspout).
Contractor exposure: Contractors can invoke hills and ridges like owners; liability arises from negligent work that creates a localized hazard.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Document every “hold off” instruction in writing with a timestamp; under Act 68 that record is what voids the indemnity.
Rhode Island Reasonable Time After Storm
Owner’s duty: Terry v. Central Auto Radiators (1999): business owners may wait until a reasonable time after a storm ends to clear; no duty during the storm, absent unusual circumstances.
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
South Carolina General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Snow is rare, but the ice storms that hit (2021’s Winter Storm Uri across Texas and the South is the reference event) produce slip-and-fall claims under ordinary premises-liability rules.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
South Dakota General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: slight/gross comparative negligence: the plaintiff recovers only if his negligence was slight compared with the defendant’s.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Tennessee General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Snow is rare, but the ice storms that hit (2021’s Winter Storm Uri across Texas and the South is the reference event) produce slip-and-fall claims under ordinary premises-liability rules.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Texas No Duty for Naturally Occurring Ice
Owner’s duty: Scott & White Memorial Hospital v. Fair (2010): a landowner owes invitees no duty to protect against naturally occurring ice from weather, because it’s an open and obvious hazard. Liability only for ice in an unnatural state (refrozen runoff, a leak).
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance and for creating an unnatural condition.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Snow is rare, but the ice storms that hit (2021’s Winter Storm Uri across Texas and the South is the reference event) produce slip-and-fall claims under ordinary premises-liability rules.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Utah General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing within a reasonable time; Utah hasn’t adopted a natural-accumulation rule.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Vermont General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Virginia Contributory Negligence + Reasonable Time
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care, with a reasonable time after the storm to clear (Amos v. NationsBank, 1998).
Contractor exposure: Liable for negligent performance.
Fault system: contributory negligence: a plaintiff who was even slightly at fault (walking in a hurry, wrong shoes, ignoring a cone) recovers nothing.
Virginia’s contributory negligence rule bars a plaintiff who was even slightly at fault; Virginia juries apply it readily to visible ice.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Washington General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: pure comparative fault: an injured pedestrian recovers even if mostly at fault, reduced by his share.
Washington courts look to whether the owner had a reasonable opportunity to address the condition; Spokane and the east side generate most claims.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
West Virginia General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (50% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if 50% or more at fault.
HB 2960 (2025) created a pilot letting the Division of Highways contract private snow removal on secondary roads in Monongalia and Preston counties, a new public-work opportunity for private plow operators.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Wisconsin Safe-Place Statute
Owner’s duty: Wisconsin’s safe-place statute (Wis. Stat. § 101.11) imposes a heightened duty on employers and owners of public buildings to make the premises as safe as the nature of the place reasonably permits, which applies to snow and ice on the building’s grounds. Municipal sidewalks are governed by Wis. Stat. § 893.83 (municipalities liable only for accumulations existing three weeks).
Contractor exposure: Contractors are sued under common-law negligence; owners face the safe-place standard. Snow anti-indemnity bills have been introduced without passing.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Madison, Milwaukee and most cities require sidewalk clearing by noon the day after snowfall.
Indemnity: No snow-specific anti-indemnity statute; broad-form indemnity clauses are enforceable if clearly written. Push for a negligence-based (“to the extent caused by”) clause.
Wyoming General Premises Liability
Owner’s duty: Reasonable care to invitees, including clearing snow and ice within a reasonable time after a storm; no special snow doctrine.
Contractor exposure: A snow contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs and can be sued directly by a pedestrian injured by a negligent plow job (an icy ridge left by the plow, a pile that melts and refreezes across a walkway, a lot salted unevenly). Whether it owes a duty for areas it was not called to service depends on the contract.
Fault system: modified comparative fault (51% bar): the plaintiff recovers nothing if more than 50% at fault.
Indemnity: No snow-specific statute; a broad-form clause making the contractor indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence is enforceable if the contract says so clearly. Negotiate it to “to the extent caused by the contractor’s negligence”.
Statutes and leading cases current as of October 2026, compiled from state codes, appellate decisions, snow-industry association materials and practitioner commentary. Doctrines are applied case by case and depend on facts (timing, notice, the plaintiff’s conduct); municipal sidewalk ordinances vary within each state. This is a survey for operating a business, not legal advice on a specific contract or claim.
Running the Business
- Insurance: contractor insurance requirements by state and workers’ comp owner exemptions by state (plow crews are seasonal employees, and comp follows them).
- Seasonal crews: independent contractor tests by state (the 1099 plow subcontractor), teen workers and child labor in the trades (shovelers under 18), and SUTA rates by state (the spring layoff).
- Getting paid: mechanics lien deadlines by state (snow removal usually isn’t lienable; a signed contract and card-on-file are the protection).
- Landscaping in the off-season: landscaping license requirements by state.
GPS-Stamped Proof of Every Push and Every Salt Run
VortechPro is dispatch software for trades shops — tiered routing, live GPS, in-field Stripe payments, on iOS and Android. $99/mo for 5 techs, +$20 per extra. 30-day free trial, no annual contract.
FAQ
Can a snow removal contractor be sued for a slip and fall?
Yes. In every state a contractor owes a duty of reasonable care in the work it actually performs, and an injured pedestrian can sue it directly for negligent work, such as a plow ridge left across a walkway, a pile placed so meltwater runs across a path and refreezes, or uneven salting. Whether the contractor can be sued for work it didn’t do depends on the contract and the state: in New York (Espinal) and Michigan (Fultz), a contractor’s failure to perform its contract is generally owed only to the owner, not to the public, unless it created the hazard, the plaintiff relied on it, or it took over the owner’s entire duty.
Which states have snow removal anti-indemnity laws?
Four. Illinois (Snow Removal Service Liability Limitation Act, 815 ILCS 675, 2016), Colorado (SB 18-062, C.R.S. 13-21-129, effective August 8, 2018) and Connecticut (2019) void contract clauses requiring a snow contractor to indemnify, defend or hold harmless the property owner for the owner’s own negligence; Colorado’s applies in both directions and excludes public roads, utilities and airports. Pennsylvania’s Act 68 (2022) is narrower: it voids such clauses when the owner affirmatively directed the contractor not to perform. Massachusetts S.1370 is pending; bills in New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Wisconsin have not passed.
What is the storm-in-progress rule?
A doctrine holding that a property owner has no duty to remove snow and ice while a storm is ongoing, and then has a reasonable time after it ends to act. New York (Solazzo), New Jersey for commercial owners (Pareja, 2021), Connecticut (Kraus, the ’ongoing storm’ rule), Delaware and Iowa (the ’continuing storm’ doctrine), Kansas and Rhode Island apply it. It protects contractors as well as owners, which is why accurate start and stop times for precipitation, and your arrival time, are central to the defense.
What is the natural accumulation rule?
A doctrine holding that an owner owes no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice, which are open and obvious, and is liable only for unnatural accumulations it caused or aggravated. Illinois and Ohio apply it strictly; Missouri applies a version unless the owner assumed the duty by contract or course of conduct; Texas holds there’s no duty for naturally occurring ice (Scott & White v. Fair, 2010). Plow piles that melt and refreeze across a walkway are the classic unnatural accumulation, so the rule doesn’t protect a contractor that creates one.
Is the indemnity clause in my snow contract enforceable?
In 46 states and DC, probably yes if it’s clearly written, including a broad-form clause that makes you indemnify the owner for the owner’s own negligence. In Illinois, Colorado and Connecticut, a clause requiring you to indemnify for the owner’s negligence is void by statute; in Pennsylvania, it’s void when the owner told you not to perform. Separately, many states’ general construction anti-indemnity statutes don’t reach snow removal because it isn’t construction. Negotiate the clause to ’to the extent caused by the negligence of Contractor’ and match the additional-insured endorsement to it.
How long should I keep snow removal service records?
At least as long as the longest personal-injury statute of limitations in your service area, plus a year. Two years covers many states (Connecticut, California, Colorado for some claims), three years covers most, and Maine’s is six. Keep GPS-stamped arrival and departure times, the services performed by area, material applied, timestamped site photos at departure, the weather record for the event, and any owner instruction to hold off. Claims commonly arrive 12 to 24 months after the fall.
What does contributory negligence mean for snow claims?
In Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and DC, a plaintiff who was even slightly at fault recovers nothing. Walking on visible ice instead of a cleared path, wearing smooth-soled shoes on an icy day, or ignoring a cone can be enough. These states produce far fewer snow verdicts against owners and contractors; the defense still needs evidence of what the plaintiff saw and did, which is why photos of the cleared path and posted warnings matter.
What should my snow removal contract say?
Negligence-based indemnity (’to the extent caused by’); an additional-insured endorsement limited to your acts; the trigger depth and whether refreeze without new snow is included; a site map defining the areas you service; a requirement that any instruction to hold off, skip salt or reduce scope be in writing, with the owner assuming that risk; the owner’s duty to inspect and notify you of refreeze or drainage problems between visits; and no ’zero tolerance’ or ’bare pavement’ guarantee. In New York, avoid language that takes over the owner’s entire maintenance duty.
Does my general liability policy cover snow removal?
Only if snow and ice removal is a listed operation. Many landscaping and contractor GL policies exclude snow plowing or require a separate endorsement, and some carriers won’t write snow at all in high-claim states. Check for a snow exclusion, the aggregate limit (one bad winter can exhaust it), and whether the policy covers contractual liability for the indemnity you signed. Property managers increasingly require $2 million per occurrence and additional-insured status.
Are homeowners liable for not shoveling their sidewalk?
Depends on the state and city. Illinois immunizes residential owners for good-faith sidewalk snow removal except willful or wanton conduct. New Jersey residential owners have no duty to clear public sidewalks unless they make the condition worse, while commercial owners do. New York City exempts owner-occupied one- to three-family homes from sidewalk liability. Many cities (Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Madison, Portland, Maine) impose clearing deadlines and fines by ordinance, and some Connecticut towns shift liability to the abutting owner. For contractors, residential driveway customers rarely create third-party exposure; commercial walks and lots do.
Bottom Line
The law of snow and ice is mostly the law of timing and paperwork. In storm-in-progress states, the question is when precipitation stopped and when you got there; in natural-accumulation states, whether your plow created something unnatural; in Papadopoulos Massachusetts and the general-duty states, whether you acted reasonably given both. The contractor that can show the minute it arrived, what it did and what the site looked like when it left wins most of those arguments, and the one relying on a driver’s memory loses them.
The bigger risk is the contract. Outside Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut and (narrowly) Pennsylvania, the broad-form indemnity clause in the property manager’s template means you pay for the owner’s negligence too. Rewrite it to negligence-based indemnity, limit the additional-insured endorsement to match, define the trigger and scope, get every hold-off instruction in writing, and never promise bare pavement.
