The short answer

In Illinois, a property owner is usually not liable when someone slips on snow or ice. The controlling rule is the natural accumulation rule, and it is blunt: as the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions put it, “As a general rule, property owners have no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow, ice or melt water from their premises.”

So the question is never really “was there ice?” It is where did this particular ice come from? If the answer involves the building, the pavement, the drainage or somebody’s snow removal, rather than simply the weather, the case changes completely.

Natural, or unnatural?

This is the whole case. Illinois juries are instructed on the difference in IPI 125.04, and the examples come straight from decided cases.

Two consequences follow that surprise people. There is no duty to warn about a natural accumulation, so “there was no sign” is not by itself a case. And clearing snow badly is not automatically negligence: Illinois holds there is no liability merely for clearing snow off ice that was underneath it all along.

Whether an accumulation is natural or unnatural is a question of fact, which is exactly why these cases are won and lost on photographs and drainage rather than on argument.

What you actually have to prove

Where the claim is that the accumulation was unnatural, IPI 125.02 sets out the burden. All six have to be met:

1. There was an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow that presented an unreasonable risk of harm.
2. The defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of the condition and the risk.
3. The defendant could reasonably expect that people would not discover or realize the danger, or would fail to protect themselves against it.
4. The defendant was negligent in a specific way.
5. You were injured.
6. That negligence was a proximate cause of the injury.

Element two is where most winter cases are actually decided. It is also worth clearing up a distinction that Illinois abolished decades ago: under 740 ILCS 130/2, “The distinction under the common law between invitees and licensees as to the duty owed by an owner or occupier of any premises to such entrants is abolished,” and the duty is “reasonable care under the circumstances.” Whether you were a customer or a guest does not change the standard. We cover the general framework in our post on what must be proven in a fall claim.

Three ways a duty arises even for natural snow

The natural accumulation rule is a default, not an absolute.

• A contract or a lease. Illinois courts have held that a lease or a snow removal agreement can create a duty to clear natural accumulations that the common law would not impose. You still have to prove the defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition; a lease creates a duty, not strict liability.
• Negligent design or maintenance of what is underneath. Recovery can rest on the pavement rather than the weather: a sloping surface that channels meltwater, an altered parking lot grade, a poorly designed entryway.
• Making it worse. Negligent plowing or removal that creates an unnatural accumulation is its own theory, recognized in Illinois for decades.

What a Village snow ordinance does, and does not, do

This is the most common misunderstanding in Illinois winter fall claims, and it points the opposite way to what most people assume.

Many Illinois municipalities require property owners to clear public sidewalks after a snowfall, and Elmwood Park’s own winter rules also restrict parking so streets can be plowed. It is tempting to read a rule like that as setting the standard: they had X hours, they missed it, so they are liable.

Illinois law does not work that way. In Klikas v. Hanover Square Condominium Association, 240 Ill. App. 3d 715 (1st Dist. 1992), the court considered exactly this kind of ordinance, one requiring removal from public sidewalks within 24 hours of a snowfall of two inches or more, and held that such an ordinance exists for the benefit of the municipality and “does not create a duty for the landowners.” Illinois courts have said the same of municipal nuisance ordinances: an ordinance does not imply a duty to remove natural accumulations where the common law creates none.

The practical translation: a missed deadline under a Village ordinance may expose an owner to the Village, but it does not hand you a negligence case. What matters is still whether the ice you fell on was unnatural.

The neighbor who shovels is protected

Illinois deliberately protects residential snow shoveling. The Snow and Ice Removal Act, 745 ILCS 75/2, provides that any owner, lessor, occupant or person in charge of residential property, or their agent, “who removes or attempts to remove snow or ice from sidewalks abutting the property shall not be liable for any personal injuries allegedly caused by the snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk resulting from his or her acts or omissions unless the alleged misconduct was willful or wanton.”

The stated policy, in Section 1, is to encourage people to clear their walks. So a residential neighbor whose shoveling left the walk imperfect is usually protected. Note the limits: it covers residential property and sidewalks abutting it, not a commercial parking lot, and not a claim that the property itself created an unnatural accumulation.

Deadlines, and the one that is shorter

A personal injury claim in Illinois generally carries a two-year deadline under 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Winter falls are unusually likely to attract the shorter one.

If you fell on property belonging to a local public entity, a village, county, school district, park district or forest preserve district, you have one year under 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a), not two. Public sidewalks, school grounds and park paths are exactly where people fall in winter, so this is not a technicality. Missing it ends the claim no matter how strong the case is.

Evidence disappears with the weather

Ice melts, and so does the case. What actually decides these claims:

• Photographs the same day, wide enough to show where the water came from, not just close-ups of the patch you fell on.
• The drainage. Downspouts, roof lines, grade and where meltwater runs. This is what converts natural into unnatural.
• Snow removal records, plow logs, salting invoices and the contractor’s agreement, which also reveal who owed what to whom.
• Weather data for the days before the fall, which shows whether the ice could have been simple freeze and thaw.
• The lease or service contract, often the single most valuable document in the file.

Serious winter falls produce serious injuries, including brain injuries and other catastrophic injuries. If the fall happened at work, a workers’ compensation claim may run alongside a claim against the property owner.

Preguntas frecuentes

Talk to an Elmwood Park slip and fall lawyer

Winter fall cases are won on where the water came from, and that evidence is gone within days. If the drainage, the plowing or the surface underneath had anything to do with the ice, that is worth establishing now rather than after the thaw.

If you were hurt in a fall in Elmwood Park, Oak Lawn, Skokie, Niles, Orland Park or anywhere in Cook County, Lawyer Furqan will tell you honestly whether the accumulation looks natural or unnatural, and what it would take to prove it. We handle the full range of premises liability claims.

Call 847-800-8978 or contact us online. The consultation is free, there is nothing upfront, and you owe no attorney’s fee unless we win.

Sources and authorities cited

• IPI Civil 125.00, Liability for Falls on Snow and Ice · the natural accumulation rule, IPI 125.02 burden of proof, and IPI 125.04 defining natural and unnatural accumulation
• Klikas v. Hanover Square Condominium Association, 240 Ill. App. 3d 715 (1st Dist. 1992) · a municipal snow ordinance does not create a duty for landowners
• 745 ILCS 75/1 and 745 ILCS 75/2 · Snow and Ice Removal Act, residential shoveling, willful or wanton standard
• 740 ILCS 130/2 · invitee and licensee distinction abolished, duty is reasonable care under the circumstances
• 735 ILCS 5/13-202 · two-year limitation; 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a) · one-year limitation, local public entities

This article is general legal information about Illinois law, not legal advice, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Whether an accumulation was natural or unnatural depends on the facts of each case, and nothing here predicts a result.