d********r
发帖数: 9331 | 1 很多人自作聪明去扫雪，其实芝加哥没有规定你有义务扫pavement 的雪，但是你如果选
择扫了，你就需要为在你门口摔伤的人负责。你如果不扫雪别人摔死和你也没关系。 | f*****8
发帖数: 7581 | 2 把原版法律条文quote出来给我们看看～
【在 d********r 的大作中提到】
: 很多人自作聪明去扫雪，其实芝加哥没有规定你有义务扫pavement 的雪，但是你如果选
: 择扫了，你就需要为在你门口摔伤的人负责。你如果不扫雪别人摔死和你也没关系。
| d********r
发帖数: 9331 | 3 就是没有规定啊，哪有条文。这些扫雪的才真要条文。
这个不难理解，pavement 不属于你，你没有义务维护，但是你去破坏导致别人受伤，
不管是主观还是客观，你都需要负责。
【在 f*****8 的大作中提到】
: 把原版法律条文quote出来给我们看看～
| f*****8
发帖数: 7581 | 4 哦明白了，那 唐人街的商家是被冤枉了，每年都有人抱怨他们不掃雪～～～
【在 d********r 的大作中提到】
: 就是没有规定啊，哪有条文。这些扫雪的才真要条文。
: 这个不难理解，pavement 不属于你，你没有义务维护，但是你去破坏导致别人受伤，
: 不管是主观还是客观，你都需要负责。
| u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 5 别胡扯了。学学法律里的 Tort 再说吧。看人家 Walmart，雪扫得多干净啊。 | d********r
发帖数: 9331 | 6 WALMART扫雪和你扫你家门雪又关系吗？
Many towns, cities and states have laws on the books requiring property
owners to remove snow from their property. For example,property owners in
Massachusetts are legally required to remove snow and ice from any area
where visitors, tenants, or the general public might travel frequently.
The law applies to private property owners - the sidewalk in front of your
home - as well as commercial property - mall parking lots and storefront
walkways, for example.
In some states, like Ohio and Illinois, property owners aren't legally
required to remove snow from their premises. However, a property owner may
be face legal problems if, for example:
1. A lease or rental agreement requires the landlord to remove snow from
sidewalks, parking lots or other common areas
2. The owner's negligence caused an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow,
such as damaged or improperly attached downspouts or an unrepaired crack in
the sidewalk
3. The snow or ice removal made the area more dangerous, such as buy
smoothing snow into a sheet of ice
Penalties vary, too. In addition to possible lawsuits, violating state or
local snow removal laws usually include fines.
上面说的第3点就是那些自作聪明去扫雪又很不情愿扫干净的人。
What You Can Do
For property owners:
Know the snow removal laws in your area. Check your state laws, as well as
the ordinances in your city or town
Take care to remove snow and ice properly
Hire a professional service to remove snow and ice. Yes, it costs you money,
but it saves you time, and if it's not done properly, the service - not you
- may be legally responsible for any injury or property damage
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 别胡扯了。学学法律里的 Tort 再说吧。看人家 Walmart，雪扫得多干净啊。
| u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 7 The law applies to private property owners - the sidewalk in front of "your
home" - as well as "commercial property" - mall parking lots and storefront
walkways
Typo in the point three. buy --> by
The question is 1) whether an owner has the duty to remove snow; 2) whether
the owner breaks his duty which leads to the injury to a passerby.
The keyword: a reasonable standard. If a home owner or store owner did what
a reasonable owner would have done in the same or similar situation, even if
someone died on or near the property, the owner does not break their duty.
If most of your neighbors clear the pavement in front of their houses, then
you should make an effort to do the same, "reasonable" sweep as well. If
only a few do, you can just wait.
Second keyword: foreseeability. Snow to ice conversion is not an exact
science. It is also known that salt can lower the melting point of solid
water. If an owner takes all the precautions a reasonable person would have
taken, but something unforeseeable happens and leads to injury, the owner is
not guilty.
Third keyword: prior knowledge. An owner did not sweep the snow in 2012. One
passerby slipped in front of the owner's house and was injured. The owner
claimed that he did not know the snow left in front of his house would have
caused any injury. In 2013, the same thing happened again. This time, the
owner cannot claim he did not know people can drop dread in front of his
house on a snowy day. His prior knowledge would lead to a foreseeability
argument against him.
Finally, what point 3 says is that one cannot make the situation WORSE than
it was before. Ice is more slippery than snow. If you pour water in an
attempt to melt snow and make the road more slippery, you will be found
guilty if someone slip on the ice your created. If you made a 6-feet tall
snow man during the process of cleanup and someone just walked into the snow
man and was suffocated by snow, it is not your fault but that of the dead
person. Use your common sense before spelling the rules. | d********r
发帖数: 9331 | 8 People Still Fall, People Still Sue.
So How Do You Protect Yourself?
In July 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court reaffirmed the decades-old “
natural accumulation rule,” under which
owners cannot be held liable for slips and falls resulting from natural
accumulations of ice or snow on their property.
(We’re not just talking about the public sidewalks now. We’re talking
about private property too.) For years, Illinois courts have consistently
dismissed cases brought by (or on behalf of) dead and wounded civilians
seeking recourse after they slipped and fell on a “natural accumulation”
of ice or snow. Under Illinois law, it has never mattered not one whit
whether the property owner had a reasonable amount of time to act, nor how
long the ice and snow remained on the ground before the injury. Property
owners have no affirmative obligation to shovel their property, absent a
contractual obligation to do so. If a pedestrian should slip and fall
because nobody ever shoveled, the pedestrian is, as they say, SOL.
So here’s why no good deed goes unpunished: If a property owner actually
goes out and shovels, but someone slips and falls anyway, the property owner
can then be sued for creating an “unnatural accumulation” of snow, for
aggravating an existing condition, or even for shoveling negligently. In an
ostensible effort to address this quirk in the law, Illinois created the
Snow And Ice Removal Act, 745 ILCS 75/1 (the “Act”). Under the Act,
owners, occupants, lessees, and managers of residential properties who
shovel away ice and snow off the sidewalks are granted immunity from legal
liability for slip and fall accidents, even in cases involving allegations
of an “unnatural accumulation” or negligent performance of snow removal.
Owners and managers of residential properties can be held liable only if the
plaintiff can prove that they deliberately caused injury (or that the
injury did not occur on a sidewalk). Business owners, however, do not enjoy
any immunity under this Act.
So basically there are three ways an injured person can recover for a slip-
and-fall caused by snow or ice:
A residential or commercial property owner or tenant was contractually
required (for example, by lease or condominium declaration) to shovel away
ice and snow, but failed to reasonably comply with that obligation.
A non-residential property owner actually shoveled away ice or snow, but
created an “unnatural accumulation,” aggravated a natural condition, or
performed the work negligently.
Any property owner, lessee, occupant, or manager engaged in clear wrongdoing
, deliberately causing an injury while shoveling ice or snow.
your
storefront
whether
what
if
.
then
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: The law applies to private property owners - the sidewalk in front of "your
: home" - as well as "commercial property" - mall parking lots and storefront
: walkways
: Typo in the point three. buy --> by
: The question is 1) whether an owner has the duty to remove snow; 2) whether
: the owner breaks his duty which leads to the injury to a passerby.
: The keyword: a reasonable standard. If a home owner or store owner did what
: a reasonable owner would have done in the same or similar situation, even if
: someone died on or near the property, the owner does not break their duty.
: If most of your neighbors clear the pavement in front of their houses, then
| d********r
发帖数: 9331 | 9 综述一下， 你不扫雪，你可能会接到50刀的罚单，但是肯定不会接到50000刀的赔偿账
单。
你扫雪的话， 你不会接到50刀的罚单，但是你很可能接到50000刀的账单。 | x*********n
发帖数: 28013 | | d********r
发帖数: 9331 | 11 此话怎讲？
我只是在Evanston, wilmette和northfield看到越大的房子越不扫雪有些奇怪而已。
【在 x*********n 的大作中提到】
: 老中说到底还是太自私了。
| s*********y
发帖数: 689 | | d********r
发帖数: 9331 | 13 sideways不是你的，保险怎么会cover?
【在 s*********y 的大作中提到】
: 房子的保险应该是cover这些的吧。
|
|
