Suing for ice on sidewalk

[Anonymous]

I hope they countersue you to recoup legal fees and higher premiums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope they countersue you to recoup legal fees and higher premiums.

How many times do we have to go over this? You can't "countersue" someone because you're upset about getting sued. That's simply not how any of this works. And you certainly can't "countersue to recoup legal fees."

[Anonymous]

People in this thread are flat out vile and needlessly hostile to OP. And they're mostly stupid and have zero understanding of the American legal system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread are flat out vile and needlessly hostile to OP. And they're mostly stupid and have zero understanding of the American legal system.

OP doesn’t have a slam dunk case. No need to blow smoke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread are flat out vile and needlessly hostile to OP. And they're mostly stupid and have zero understanding of the American legal system.

Can you explain (no snark). I have responded previously that I don’t understand how she has a case when the owners cleared their walk and were not negligent. Does the US legal system really just allow anyone to sue with no evidence and no noticeable ice? And if so, why would every car accident caused by black ice not be able to be blamed on HOA’s and the county? I’m kind of fascinated by this. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread are flat out vile and needlessly hostile to OP. And they're mostly stupid and have zero understanding of the American legal system.

Can you explain (no snark). I have responded previously that I don’t understand how she has a case when the owners cleared their walk and were not negligent. Does the US legal system really just allow anyone to sue with no evidence and no noticeable ice? And if so, why would every car accident caused by black ice not be able to be blamed on HOA’s and the county? I’m kind of fascinated by this. Thanks!

There's too many variables for anyone to be able to opine on whether OP has a viable case. But most people are arguing over the wrong issues. The main issue will be whether the state OP was injured in requires home owner's to maintain their sidewalks. Some do, some don't. The other issue will be whether the homeowner breached their duty (compare the homeowner who failed to put out salt during a multi day period of cold weather and freezing rain versus the homeowner who didn't put out salt 4 hours into a cold snap).

Instead of these issues, posters are going off on wild tangents. Firstly, OP can prove through her testimony that the ice was there. She doesn't need anything more. It would be up to the jury to decide whether or not it finds her credible. Secondly, waiting 6 months to file suit is not a long time at all. She can bring suit anytime before the statute of limitations expires, which for torts would be at least a few years. Thirdly, whether or not OP has short term disability insurance is immaterial as to whether or not she has the right to sue. Finally, there's simply no such thing as "countersuing" because you're angry or annoyed about being the party to a lawsuit, and the US doesn't allow fee shifting unless there's a specific statute that allows for it (like civil rights cases that allow a prevailing plaintiff to recover attorney fees in addition to damages).

It seems there's a toxic mix of trolling and ignorance in this thread. It's disheartening, and shows the true colors of many of the posters here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you have proof of where you fell?

This. Also, I thought people are responsible for removing snow, so it’s “walkable”, which it seems they did. Not sure residents are also responsible for black ice.

It so happens I do, bc we took a photos right before and I was with other people, so there were multiple witnesses.

You aren’t litigious but you took photos and the names of witnesses?

Come on, now.

You people are all terrible readers and paranoid. The pictures were just social and the ice isn’t in it. The house is though, and multiple witnesses who can speak to my having fallen right afterwards in front of that house.

The pictures prove nothing. Your problem is the condition of the sidewalk. And you can't prove that they didn't maintain it carefully. Maybe they can say you were a drunk idiot who didn't watch where they were going. Nobody else in your party managed to slip on this deadly ice, right? Just you?

It was a small patch and since we were walking across a sidewalk which is something you only do once, by definition I was the only one to slip on it, bc it was in my path and no one else’s. I probably want the only person to slip on it that day though. The wannabe lawyers of DCUM really are none too bright it seems.

Why were you walking across a sidewalk? Into someone'e yard? Into the street? Why haven't you answered what time of day this was and whether alcohol was involved?

You people are terrible! But I’ll answer: 11am, no alcohol, it was a townhouse and the sidewalk was outside of it, I wasn’t trespassing on anyone’s property and where I live the property owner is responsible for clearing the sidewalk in front of their house. It’s coming up now bc I had no idea I had any recourse until someone asked me recently if I pursued it, it had not even occurred to me. Happy now? Jesus.

That's really obnoxious when you can gather in front of your house and you did it in front of your neighbors house.

We’d is wrong with you. It is literally a sidewalk picture like Georgetown. We were walking down a public sidewalk not throwing a freaking block party in front of someone else’s house, and yes we paused to take a photo which last time I checked was not a crime. The mental gymnastics people are going to here to attack and discredit me for perfectly legal, respectful and respectable behavior it frankly pathetic. This board is a much more ugly and disgusting demographic than I realized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you have proof of where you fell?

This. Also, I thought people are responsible for removing snow, so it’s “walkable”, which it seems they did. Not sure residents are also responsible for black ice.

It so happens I do, bc we took a photos right before and I was with other people, so there were multiple witnesses.

You aren’t litigious but you took photos and the names of witnesses?

Come on, now.

You people are all terrible readers and paranoid. The pictures were just social and the ice isn’t in it. The house is though, and multiple witnesses who can speak to my having fallen right afterwards in front of that house.

The pictures prove nothing. Your problem is the condition of the sidewalk. And you can't prove that they didn't maintain it carefully. Maybe they can say you were a drunk idiot who didn't watch where they were going. Nobody else in your party managed to slip on this deadly ice, right? Just you?

It was a small patch and since we were walking across a sidewalk which is something you only do once, by definition I was the only one to slip on it, bc it was in my path and no one else’s. I probably want the only person to slip on it that day though. The wannabe lawyers of DCUM really are none too bright it seems.

Why were you walking across a sidewalk? Into someone'e yard? Into the street? Why haven't you answered what time of day this was and whether alcohol was involved?

You people are terrible! But I’ll answer: 11am, no alcohol, it was a townhouse and the sidewalk was outside of it, I wasn’t trespassing on anyone’s property and where I live the property owner is responsible for clearing the sidewalk in front of their house. It’s coming up now bc I had no idea I had any recourse until someone asked me recently if I pursued it, it had not even occurred to me. Happy now? Jesus.

That's really obnoxious when you can gather in front of your house and you did it in front of your neighbors house.

We’d is wrong with you. It is literally a sidewalk picture like Georgetown. We were walking down a public sidewalk not throwing a freaking block party in front of someone else’s house, and yes we paused to take a photo which last time I checked was not a crime. The mental gymnastics people are going to here to attack and discredit me for perfectly legal, respectful and respectable behavior it frankly pathetic. This board is a much more ugly and disgusting demographic than I realized.

^this corrected to We’d. It should say “wtf.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they countersue you to recoup legal fees and higher premiums.

How many times do we have to go over this? You can't "countersue" someone because you're upset about getting sued. That's simply not how any of this works. And you certainly can't "countersue to recoup legal fees."

Np. Why not? I can show damages. If someone sued me frivolously, why can’t I sue for court fees?

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, in the upper Midwest:

“MADISON, Wis. — The City of Madison is rolling out new limits on how much salt residents can use to clear ice and snow from their sidewalks — including possible fines for using too much.

City officials say the change is designed to keep sidewalks safe while also reducing the amount of salt that finds its way into the community’s waterways, adding that using too much salt creates its own accessibility problems for people with disabilities who may have trouble using wheelchairs or walkers on sidewalks with large amounts of salt.

…

Under the new rules, property owners can only use enough salt or chemical melting agents to remove the snow and ice — meaning excess salt or melting agents can’t be left behind and has to be removed from the sidewalk once the snow and ice are gone.

“This is the discretion of the inspector,” Donoso said. “Every single property is different, every situation is different. We understand that not all of the sidewalks are totally flat, we have hills here and there so we will evaluate every single condition.”

https://www.channel3000.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in this thread are flat out vile and needlessly hostile to OP. And they're mostly stupid and have zero understanding of the American legal system.

Can you explain (no snark). I have responded previously that I don’t understand how she has a case when the owners cleared their walk and were not negligent. Does the US legal system really just allow anyone to sue with no evidence and no noticeable ice? And if so, why would every car accident caused by black ice not be able to be blamed on HOA’s and the county? I’m kind of fascinated by this. Thanks!

There's too many variables for anyone to be able to opine on whether OP has a viable case. But most people are arguing over the wrong issues. The main issue will be whether the state OP was injured in requires home owner's to maintain their sidewalks. Some do, some don't. The other issue will be whether the homeowner breached their duty (compare the homeowner who failed to put out salt during a multi day period of cold weather and freezing rain versus the homeowner who didn't put out salt 4 hours into a cold snap).

Instead of these issues, posters are going off on wild tangents. Firstly, OP can prove through her testimony that the ice was there. She doesn't need anything more. It would be up to the jury to decide whether or not it finds her credible. Secondly, waiting 6 months to file suit is not a long time at all. She can bring suit anytime before the statute of limitations expires, which for torts would be at least a few years. Thirdly, whether or not OP has short term disability insurance is immaterial as to whether or not she has the right to sue. Finally, there's simply no such thing as "countersuing" because you're angry or annoyed about being the party to a lawsuit, and the US doesn't allow fee shifting unless there's a specific statute that allows for it (like civil rights cases that allow a prevailing plaintiff to recover attorney fees in addition to damages).

It seems there's a toxic mix of trolling and ignorance in this thread. It's disheartening, and shows the true colors of many of the posters here.

You seem to know the laws. Could you answer this?
If I'm driving and get into an accident caused by ice on the road, can I sue the city, county, or state for not removing snow on the road? Would I have a case? This actually happened to me.
Or this whole suing thing only applies to sidewalk on homeowners properties?
What if it is the sidewalk in front of a public building? I'm assuming the city or county is responsible for removing ice. Can I sue them?

[Anonymous]

So every homeowner must salt the sidewalk for ever snow if they do not want to be sued?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they countersue you to recoup legal fees and higher premiums.

How many times do we have to go over this? You can't "countersue" someone because you're upset about getting sued. That's simply not how any of this works. And you certainly can't "countersue to recoup legal fees."

Np. Why not? I can show damages. If someone sued me frivolously, why can’t I sue for court fees?

This isn't worth debating. An unsuccessful lawsuit doesn't mean it's frivolous, and there's a high bar to establishing a frivolous lawsuit. Even if there is a frivolous suit, you don't get to sue for it.

Showing damages is not a legal standard. You'd have to show that they owed you a legal duty, that they breached that duty, and that you were harmed as a proximate cause of that breach.

"Court fees" are not attorneys fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So every homeowner must salt the sidewalk for ever snow if they do not want to be sued?

I wonder if they sell snow melt salt at Target - you can just go steal it, and no one will come after you. BUT you better use it or they WILL come after you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...
It seems there's a toxic mix of trolling and ignorance in this thread. It's disheartening, and shows the true colors of many of the posters here.

DCUM gonna DCUM! :mrgreen: