Case Law Summaries

Houseal v. Greentree Village

• Opinion Date: January 15, 2003
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

CONTRACTORS; LIABILITY—Where a snow removal company’s contract only required it to remove snow when asked to do so, its failure to monitor conditions or remove ice is not grounds for liability.

A condominium unit owner fell on ice in the parking area of her condominium. She sued the Association and its snow removal company. The fall occurred after a major snow fall of 25 to 35 inches. “Travel conditions were dreadful, and there was substantial ice accumulation. The parking area where [she] fell was covered with ice about one foot thick.” The Appellate Division agreed with the lower court that the Association had acted reasonably by contacting its snow removal company. “In such a situation, even the best efforts cannot render a property free and safe of ice and snow.” The snow removal company had no obligation under its contract to monitor conditions or remove ice. Consequently, the lower court, with the Appellate Division’s approval, held that the snow removal company had no liability to the injured woman. Its obligation did not include cleaning sidewalks or spreading calcium on sidewalks. Salting of the parking lots was not part of the service provided. Its sole obligation was to remove snow when the Association called it. That’s exactly what it did. The Appellate Division found that the lower court improperly awarded summary judgment in favor of the Association. The record did not reflect whether the Association took any steps other than calling the snow removal company once, “to ensure that someone sanded or attempted to remove ice, though it knew the contract with [its snow removal] did not include ice removal.” Moreover, the Association’s management company had been advised that “dangerous, icy conditions were causing people to fall.”

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.