Day on Torts
A restaurant did not have a duty to clear ice and snow from its steps while a winter storm was ongoing.
In Broyles v. Herrin, No. M2024-00592-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2025), the plaintiff visited defendant restaurant during a winter storm. Snow and ice had been falling for approximately ten to thirty minutes before the plaintiff arrived at the restaurant, and snow and ice had accumulated on the steps. The plaintiff could see the accumulated precipitation, so he used the handrail as he climbed the restaurant steps, but he slipped and fell on an ice patch. This suit followed.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant restaurant “caused his injuries by failing to remove snow and ice from the premises or by failing to follow proper procedures to protect him from the dangerous and unsafe condition.” The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it owed no duty to “remove snow and ice from the premises during an ongoing winter storm.” The trial court agreed with the defendant, granting summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The plaintiff asserted on appeal that the defendant “owed a duty to remove the accumulated snow and ice from the porch area.” The plaintiff relied on “general principles” of premises liability law, but “fail[ed] to acknowledge pertinent caselaw specifically addressing a premises owner’s duty when natural accumulations of snow and ice have created a dangerous condition on the premises.” Tennessee courts have “declined to impose a duty on owners or occupiers of property to continuously remove snow or ice in the middle of an ongoing winter storm.” (internal citation omitted). Instead, property owners “are expected to take reasonable steps to remove snow and ice within a reasonable time after it has formed or accumulated.” (internal citation omitted).
Here, the precipitation had been falling for less than an hour and was ongoing at the time of the plaintiff’s fall. The Court therefore affirmed the ruling that the defendant “owed no duty to [the plaintiff] to begin removing the snow and ice before the precipitation ended.”
The plaintiff also argued that the defendant should have closed the walk-in entrance and only left the drive-thru open for customers due to the accumulated ice. This was essentially a failure to warn argument. Based on the short time the snow had been falling in this case, and the fact that the storm was ongoing, the Court ruled that the defendant “did not act unreasonably in not beginning its efforts to survey its property to determine whether the winter storm had created an abnormally dangerous condition at the entrance to the restaurant.” The defendant did not have a duty to warn under the facts, and summary judgment was affirmed.
This case is a reminder that while general principles of premises liability apply to most cases, some circumstances (such as snow and ice cases) have a distinct body of law that must be consulted.
A suggestion to plaintiff’s lawyers: you may think the law of slip and falls because of snow is unfair. Perhaps it is. But the vast majority of these cases are losers. Do your factual and case law due diligence before accepting this type of case.
This opinion was released six months after oral arguments.