The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Just wondering . . . is there a city ordinance requiring apartment managers to remove snow/ice from common areas (sidewalks, parking lots) in their complex within a certain time frame after a snow storm?  Do residents have recourse if their apartment management fails to remove snow/ice?   ???

My apartment management has done absolutely nothing to remove snow/ice from common sidewalks or parking lots.  There is a 3' snow drift outside my building.  My neighbors and I (as well as my newspaper carrier) have had to wade through this drift to get in/out of our apartments.  There is a car in the parking lot that presumably got stuck when the storm hit.  Evidently our management has done nothing to get the car moved or towed, so we're having to navigate around the car in order to get out of the complex.  The parking lot is so icy and treacherous the garbage truck didn't even make its usual Monday morning rounds, so the garbage is piling up. >:(

Any of you Legal Eagles out there . . . do I have any legal recourse?  Can I sic Code Enforcement on my apartment manager to force them to do their job?

As far as I know there is no requirement to remove snow/ice from any private property.

I bet their liablility insurance company has some sort of fine print in their policy language that they are required to remove it.

If you were renting a house, would you expect the landlord to clear your sidewalk and driveway? Probably not.

Its bad pr for the complex and I suppose it could cause them to be included in a lawsuit should someone get hurt as a result but really, how many snow removal people are there in this city?

Sure.  Also vacuum the rugs, do the dishes........

It's not the responsibility of a landlord to mow the lawn of a house, but it is if it's an apartment.
Snow removal would be treated the same as lawn care. 

Took this from the OK Landlord/Tenant Act, comes from 41 O.S. 2001

§118. Duties of landlord and tenant
A. A landlord shall at all times during the tenancy:
1.  Except  in  the  case  of  a  single-family  residence,  keep  all  common  areas  of  his  building,
grounds, facilities and appurtenances in a clean, safe and sanitary condition;
2. Make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the tenant’s dwelling unit and
premises in a fit and habitable condition;
3.  Maintain  in  good  and  safe  working  order  and  condition  all  electrical,  plumbing,  sanitary,
heating, ventilating, air-conditioning and other facilities and appliances, including elevators, sup-
plied or required to be supplied by him;
4.  Except  in  the  case  of  one-or  two-family  residences  or  where  provided  by  a  governmental
entity, provide and maintain appropriate receptacles and conveniences for the removal of ashes,
garbage, rubbish and other waste incidental to the occupancy of the dwelling unit and arrange for
the frequent removal of such wastes; and
5. Except in the case of a single-family residence or where the service is supplied by direct and
independently-metered utility connections to the dwelling unit, supply running water and reason-
able amounts of hot water at all times and reasonable heat.
B. The landlord and tenant of a dwelling unit may agree by a conspicuous writing independent
of the rental agreement that the tenant is to perform specified repairs, maintenance tasks, altera-
tions or remodeling.

While there may not be a specific municipal code requirement, the owner is still liable for any harm that occurs because of negligent conditions in the common areas, unless the lease provides otherwise.  The same is true for a shop owner who does not clear his storefront.  It's just the way the common law of torts works.

Nope. Snow and ice has repeatedly been adjudicated as an open and obvious danger as a matter of law and the property owner owing no legal duty to protect those from that danger. See, Dover v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 2005 OK 22, 111 P.3d 243, Buck v. Del City Apartments, Inc., 1967 OK 81, 431 P.2d 360, 366. In Dover, the Court observed that "[w]here there is no act on the part of the owner or occupant of the premises creating a greater hazard than that brought about by natural causes, dangers created by the elements, such as the forming of ice and the falling of snow, are universally known, and all persons on the property are expected to assume the burden of protecting themselves from them." Dover , 2005 OK 22,¶8 (Emphasis in original).

Incidentally, how is the natural accumulation of snow and ice a "negligent condition[]" created by the property owner?

Where I grew up (suburban Philly, PA) there was an ordinance that the sidewalks had to be cleaned full width down to the paving within (I believe) 24 or 48 hours after the snow stopped falling.  I don't remember how melting and subsequent re-freezing was handled.

It's not.  But repeatedly failing to remove it as it gets slicker with melting and re-freezing cycles can be construed as a danger caused by negligence and that DOES lead to many slip and fall lawsuits that raise insurance premiums for all property owners, whether or not the original natural accumulation is a negligent condition.  Sort of like someone slipping on bird crap in the parking lot at Warehouse Market and gonking their head or someone tripping over fallen leaves on a commercial property. Where's the liablity in those cases, both are natural accumulation?  How safe is a property owner expected to keep their property and how vigilant do they have to be to look for every single possible danger to a patron, resident, or visitor?

Regardless if the "original accumulation" is out of the hands of the owner, people still sue and it still forces an insurance company to pay a defense attorney to get a plaintiff's attorney off their back.  I also suspect there are a lot of quick small settlements out there that street lawyers take daily and move along to the next easy mark.

You know the insurance defense industry a lot better than I do, am I very far off base?

Not at all off base. I must have dealt with 5-6 of these ice/rain slip and fall cases a year and rarely did I get summary judgment despite the express language from the above-referenced cases. The problem I have is that a property owner is damned if they do and damned if they don't when it comes to clearing ice or snow. If they don't clean, they get sued for allowing a dangerous situation to worsen. If they do clean, and don't do a very good job, they get sued for either negligent performance or creating a "greater hazard". CF might have a different take.

Nothing in my lease covers snow removal.

Not surprising there's no liability for "natural accumulation" because that would not only protect a do-nothing landlord, it should also protect a good samaritan tenant from being sued because they didn't do a good enough job shoveling and somebody slipped and fell...

I remember maintenance people in Illinois who'd start up the snowblower and clear out the sidewalks directly in front of the building and maybe a common walkway in the back... the outside staircase in the back?... no dice cuz you'd have to be stupid to go up and down a buncha slick wooden stairs in the middle of winter-- use the front stairs, dummy....

God, I miss basic Chicago snow-removal etiquette right now......
http://chicagoist.com/2008/02/05/ask_chicagoist_26.php

Chicago Municipal Code 10-8-190 explicitly says that you cannot be sued if you put forth a good faith effort to clear your walk from snow and ice. Specifically, "any person who removes snow or ice from the public sidewalk or street, shall not, as a result of his acts or omissions in such removal, be liable for civil damages." The only time that would not apply is if the person performed "acts or omissions amounting to willful or wanton misconduct in such snow or ice removal."

Tulsa just doesn't get enough snow to be snow wise.

Tulsa also doesn't have enough pedestrians for sidewalk snow removal to be anything other than an afterthought...

I don't see how removing snow from an apartment parking lot is practical. There is always going to be plenty of cars in the lot. Even more after snow because there will be less people venturing out. Where would the snow plows push the snow? Block all the parked cars in?

Other parking lots it can be done because they will be empty when they are plowed.

They just make multiple passes. Plow everywhere you can, then plow again a day later after most of the cars have migrated to the plowed spaces.

You have to remove the snow in northern climates or else you'd be driving and walking around on several feet of accumulated snow by the end of the winter.

I just assumed there was some snow removal ordinance. I thought that was one of those things in every city, kind of like how you have to mow your lawn.

Grass grows naturally, but you still have to cut it.

And if there's not a shoveling ordinance, there at least has to be something making it illegal to plow giant piles of snow onto the sidewalk, right? You can't just block the public right-of-way.

When I'm home, I always spread ice melt and kitty litter on my sidewalk since I have to do the steps up to my porch anyway and I prefer to be able to walk in front of my house without falling on my butt. Hopefully that doesn't open me up to liability where none previously existed...

I'm sure my sidewalk has been treacherous lately since I haven't been home since the blizzard.

And as far as not blocking the sidewalk, whether or not it's never enforced. Hell, some people in my neighborhood have removed existing sidewalk.

It seems unreasonable of the management not to remove the snow from the common areas.  Surely they don't expect people who live in an apartment to have a snow shovel handy.  Especially in Tulsa.

Why especially in Tulsa?  Are we "better" than someone from, say, Fargo, ND?