falling snow and ice

[gert40]

What is the name of your state? PA
i had snow and ice fall on me off a business rooftop. I am suffering from whiplash as well as shoulder pain and tingling in my arm. what are my chances of suing for neligence on the part of the business owner?

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by gert40

What is the name of your state? PA
i had snow and ice fall on me off a business rooftop. I am suffering from whiplash as well as shoulder pain and tingling in my arm. what are my chances of suing for neligence on the part of the business owner?

In an amazing coincidence, they are exactly the same as the chances that the business owner was negligent.

If you provide more details, perhaps more specific answers can be offered.

[johnd]

Consult 100 attorneys. If they're good, I'd be willing to bet 99 of them will tell you it's not actionable as a matter of public poilcy. Like Guilty wrote, unless you can prove negligence (or worse) on the property owner, good luck. And oh, heads up!

[gert40]

to follow up, what are the chances of being compensated for my pain and suffering?

[Blue Meanie]

Originally Posted by gert40

to follow up, what are the chances of being compensated for my pain and suffering?

0%****************************Did you read the responses?

[johnd]

Originally Posted by baystategirl

0%****************************Did you read the responses?

Atta Girl! LOL

[gert40]

obvisously this is not the website I thought it would be. I didn't expect to be insulted by such rude and obviously unintelligent walks of life. Think I'll look for a forum with a little more class!

[racer72]

Another satisfied customer. Won't she be surprised when she pays a lawyer to tell her the exact same thing.

[ForFun]

Originally Posted by gert40

What is the name of your state? PA
i had snow and ice fall on me off a business rooftop. I am suffering from whiplash as well as shoulder pain and tingling in my arm. what are my chances of suing for neligence on the part of the business owner?

Greetings,

Below are some excerpts from a Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case (albeit an old case) that appears to be right on point.

"About 2:00 P.M. on December 29, 1945, during a thawing temperature, snow and ice, perhaps a bushel in quantity, fell upon appellant from the roof of the building occupied by appellee, as she was walking on the abutting public sidewalk.

Appellant may not recover by merely showing that she was injured. There must be evidence to support a finding of a breach of the occupier's duty to a user of the sidewalk.

The evidence does not support the contention that it was a mass of ice and snow permitted by appellee to collect in the gutter or on the ledge of the building which fell and injured appellant. On the contrary, her own evidence establishes that it was a part of the normal accumulation on the roof itself that fell....

There is no testimony that snow or ice had fallen from this roof on any prior occasion and no evidence that the accumulation on the roof was of an [364 Pa. 130] unusual nature, differing in any way from that existing on other roofs throughout the community in general, or that the prevailing weather conditions were abnormal, considering the season of the year, to indicate a necessity for additional precautions on this particular occasion.

To charge the owner or occupier with culpability in such a case it must not only appear that the condition existed for so long a time as to visit him with knowledge of it, but must also appear that the danger was sufficiently obvious that he should have realized that someone might be injured because of it.

Clearly the mere fact that snow or ice fell from the roof is not of itself sufficient proof of negligence. It was incumbent on appellant to show some unusual condition existing before the accident that would lead appellee, through its employees, in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care, to believe that additional precautions were required.

The present case is to be distinguished from cases...where the pedestrian was injured by ice on the sidewalk which formed as a result of antecedent negligence in permitting the premises to become defective. Here, the presence of snow on the roof of the building occupied by appellee was not caused by any act or omission on its part, but was a natural phenomenon incident to our climate. Also distinguishable are [cases] where the building was so constructed as inevitably to collect snow and ice and discharge it into the street, or where it appeared from the evidence that snow-slides from the roof during the winter months occurred with such frequency as to charge the owner or occupier with notice of the dangerous condition." Hutchison v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 70 A.2d 838, 364 Pa. 126 (Pa., 1950).

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by ForFun

Greetings,

Below are some excerpts from a Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case (albeit an old case) that appears to be right on point.

"About 2:00 P.M. on December 29, 1945, during a thawing temperature, snow and ice, perhaps a bushel in quantity, fell upon appellant from the roof of the building occupied by appellee, as she was walking on the abutting public sidewalk.

Appellant may not recover by merely showing that she was injured. There must be evidence to support a finding of a breach of the occupier's duty to a user of the sidewalk.

The evidence does not support the contention that it was a mass of ice and snow permitted by appellee to collect in the gutter or on the ledge of the building which fell and injured appellant. On the contrary, her own evidence establishes that it was a part of the normal accumulation on the roof itself that fell....

There is no testimony that snow or ice had fallen from this roof on any prior occasion and no evidence that the accumulation on the roof was of an [364 Pa. 130] unusual nature, differing in any way from that existing on other roofs throughout the community in general, or that the prevailing weather conditions were abnormal, considering the season of the year, to indicate a necessity for additional precautions on this particular occasion.

To charge the owner or occupier with culpability in such a case it must not only appear that the condition existed for so long a time as to visit him with knowledge of it, but must also appear that the danger was sufficiently obvious that he should have realized that someone might be injured because of it.

Clearly the mere fact that snow or ice fell from the roof is not of itself sufficient proof of negligence. It was incumbent on appellant to show some unusual condition existing before the accident that would lead appellee, through its employees, in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care, to believe that additional precautions were required.

The present case is to be distinguished from cases...where the pedestrian was injured by ice on the sidewalk which formed as a result of antecedent negligence in permitting the premises to become defective. Here, the presence of snow on the roof of the building occupied by appellee was not caused by any act or omission on its part, but was a natural phenomenon incident to our climate. Also distinguishable are [cases] where the building was so constructed as inevitably to collect snow and ice and discharge it into the street, or where it appeared from the evidence that snow-slides from the roof during the winter months occurred with such frequency as to charge the owner or occupier with notice of the dangerous condition." Hutchison v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 70 A.2d 838, 364 Pa. 126 (Pa., 1950).

Or, in other words, "In an amazing coincidence, they are exactly the same as the chances that the business owner was negligent."

[Blue Meanie]

Originally Posted by gert40

obvisously this is not the website I thought it would be. I didn't expect to be insulted by such rude and obviously unintelligent walks of life. Think I'll look for a forum with a little more class!

[url]www.stupidpeople.com[/url]

Should be just the thing for you!!

[ForFun]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

Or, in other words, "In an amazing coincidence, they are exactly the same as the chances that the business owner was negligent."

Yep. Just thought I'd give the poster a cite so he realizes you weren't just blowing smoke up his you know what.

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by ForFun

Yep. Just thought I'd give the poster a cite so he realizes you weren't just blowing smoke up his you know what.

You will quickly learn how to tell who's here for actual advice vs. who's here to be patted on the back and told "poor baby". You'll also want to save the heavy lifting for the former group. The latter will never be happy with the correct legal answer. (This OP being a good example).

Save your energy for those whom it might actually help.