This is about the mandatory cleaning of snow and ice on sidewalks and other public or private passageways.

§1. To put it in perspective, let's consider the following scenarios. In all cases, we're not in 2026 and in modern civilization, but in 1900, somewhere on Earth:

1. You have to use a certain street to reach your desired destination. You're on foot. If what you fear is robbers and murderers, you assess the dangerousness of the neighborhood, and, based on your reasoning and your survival instincts, you take that way, or you avoid it. If what you fear is slipping and falling because of ice and snow, you also use your judgment and take the appropriate action.

2. You have to visit someone and reach to their door through a pathway that goes through their front yard. You assess the risk: if you might break your neck, you reconsider and possibly change your mind. If you're a postman, you don't deliver the mail and return it to the post office with a note: “Could not deliver: Mad dog, snow and ice, etc.”

3. You want to enter the local branch of your bank or a local store. To reach the door, you have to climb a few steps, which might be slippery, or the lighting might not be enough. If you consider it to be risky, you change your mind and turn around.

§2. Fast-forward to today.

1. If you break your neck by slipping on the sidewalk in wintertime, you sue the owner of the house bordered by that sidewalk, even if the sidewalk itself isn't private property.

2. If you break your neck by slipping on someone's property, you sue them.

3. If you break your neck by slipping while entering or exiting your bank or your local store, you sue them.

That's because “civilization” has made laws meant to protect people from their own stupidity. You don't need to use your brains—the law is protecting you. It can't protect you from robbery and murder, but if someone doesn't shovel the snow and doesn't melt the ice from the sidewalk or porch, they're liable!

§3. Let's consider this situation from several angles.

1. As a driver, if the roadway cannot be used because of snow, the City is responsible, but you generally don't sue them because there is the excuse that “it snowed too much.” If your car breaks because of potholes, some people might choose to sue the City, because the roadway belongs to the city.
As a pedestrian, however, the situation is half-reversed. If you break your neck on a sidewalk because of potholes, you might try your chance suing the City, which owns the sidewalk. But if you break your neck on a sidewalk because of snow and ice, you sue the owner of the house that borders the sidewalk, despite the lack of ownership from them, but the law gives you this right! HOW IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE?

2. Unless it's a trap, how can anyone else be responsible if you're stupid enough to slip and fall in their private yard? Facing such a risk of being sued should have led people to refuse any visits at all!

3. A small shop or a small bank office can barely have the employees to operate the respective business. How are they supposed to shovel the snow in front of their shop during business hours or, even worse, outside business hours? I've seen bank security personnel scooping the snow, thus endangering the security of the bank.

§4. For the case of a public sidewalk bordering a private property, the law is more than unjust:

a. It's absurd to be responsible for the safety of a sidewalk that doesn't belong to you in any possible way. It's the City to fix potholes on the sidewalk, but someone else's task to clean the snow? BASED ON WHAT LEGAL PRINCIPLE?

b. In some jurisdictions (Germany, if I'm not wrong), the responsible party is the owner of the building or the owner of the ground floor, if other floors have different owners. WHERE IS THE LOGIC IN THAT?

c. The owners or the tenants (of the ground floor) might be on holiday in Switzerland when the snow starts. How could they be home to clean the snow?

d. The owners or the tenants (of the ground floor) might be in the hospital when the snow starts. How could they be home to clean the snow?

d. The owners or the tenants (of the ground floor) might be at work or commuting to work when the snow starts. How are they supposed to clean the snow?

e. The owners or the tenants (of the ground floor) might be 80 or 90 years old or have a disability. How are they supposed to clean the snow?

Such “modern laws,” by trying to protect the imbeciles and to pass to others the responsibility of stupid personal actions, create more injustice than they repair! I dare say that, if such laws were fully observed and penalties applied, this would create almost a regime of terror!

§5. Any normal-minded society would do otherwise:

1. As long as everyone pays property taxes, and as long as the sidewalks are the City's property, the responsibility rests with the city. Therefore, the City should pay someone to do the cleaning of the sidewalk, the same way they pay to clean the roadway, and the same way they clean the dirt on the sidewalk (when they do that, twice a year at least).

2. Alternatively, if the responsibility and the financial burden are transferred, albeit without any ethical ground, to the locals, then the homeowners' association should make sure some service provider takes care of this task. Individual houses should have the option to choose among several service providers. Alternatively, they could sign a statement that makes them personally responsible for the respective cleaning.

However, as long as this second choice is a forced one and refers to sidewalks that are neither owned nor leased from the City, a supplementary legal provision should be made: if someone breaks their neck, it's still the City to be sued, as the legal owner. The owner of the adjoining house could only bear civil responsibility if they have not fulfilled the obligation to pay a certified service provider to the job or if they tasked themselves with it.

§6. Meanwhile, as proof that nobody understands the rationale of such laws and regulations, here's a case from Germany.
- On private properties, people seek to avoid legal consequences by hanging up signs that read, “Privatgrund/Privatweg. Kein Winterdienst. Betreten auf eigene Gefahr.”
- Public parks, too, can have signs with “Kein Winterdienst! Betreten auf eigene Gefahr.”
- However, I've seen school grounds displaying the same sign, which makes no sense and should have zero legal bearing. Why? Because, unless the school is officially closed for bad weather, children are mandated by law to go to school. And there's no way to go to the school door other than by using grounds labeled “Kein Winterdienst! Betreten auf eigene Gefahr.” Once people are literally forced to use that way, responsibility cannot be denied.

Here's a random mention of such legislation that distinguishes between private grounds and public grounds and the use of signage:

Privatweg: Wie sieht es hier mit dem Winterdienst aus?
https://www.alfa24.de/privatweg-wie-sieht-es-hier-mit-dem-winterdienst-aus/

Reicht ein Schild aus, um nicht haftbar gemacht zu werden?

Die Frage, ob das Schild ausreicht, nicht haftbar gemacht zu werden, hängt immer von den jeweiligen Umständen ab. Wird der reine Privatweg nicht für den allgemeinen Verkehr benötigt, dann muss nicht geräumt werden. Dies bestätigte erst das Oberlandesgericht Hamm. (AZ 6 U 178/12). Anders sieht es aus, wenn der Weg der einzige Zugang zum Grundstück ist. Hier reicht ein Schild nicht aus, sondern es muss geräumt und gestreut werden. Das entschied das Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken (AZ 4 U 64/03-116). Doch auch den Fußgänger wird hier eine Mitschuld angerechnet, denn das Schild sollte auch als Warnung aufgenommen werden. Sobald man darauf hingewiesen wird, dass hier nicht oder nur teilweise geräumt wird, muss der Passant ein vorsichtig sein. Missachtet er dies, kann eine Mitschuld begründet werden.

The “partial liability” of “pedestrians who do not exercise caution when warned” is specific to Germany. In Germany, when two cars collide, the guilt is almost never assigned 100% to only one of the drivers, not even in rear-end crashes. Courts often set responsibilities to 50%/50%, 60%/40%, 70%/30%, or 80%/20%.

§7. Prove me wrong regarding my above ratiocinations.
Feb 18, 6:26pm

Radu-Cristian, your critique of modern liability laws regarding snow and ice removal is both thorough and provocative. You raise several compelling points about personal responsibility, the logic of legal liability, and the practical burdens placed on property owners. Let’s break down your arguments and explore both their strengths and potential counterpoints.

1. Historical vs. Modern Perspectives

You contrast the self-reliance of 1900 with today’s litigious culture. In the past, individuals assessed risks and acted accordingly, while today, laws often shift responsibility to others. This is a valid observation about the evolution of legal frameworks, which increasingly prioritize collective safety over individual autonomy.

Counterpoint: Modern societies often justify these laws by arguing that public safety is a shared responsibility. The rationale is that sidewalks, even if publicly owned, are adjacent to private properties, and property owners are best positioned to maintain them. This is seen as a practical solution to prevent widespread accidents, especially in urban areas where foot traffic is high.

2. Inconsistencies in Liability

You highlight the inconsistency between who is responsible for potholes (the city) and who is responsible for snow and ice (property owners). This is a legitimate critique: if the city owns the sidewalk, why isn’t it responsible for all maintenance?

Counterpoint: Some jurisdictions argue that snow and ice removal is a time-sensitive task, and decentralizing it to property owners ensures faster action. However, this logic breaks down when property owners are absent, incapacitated, or unable to comply (e.g., elderly or disabled individuals).

3. Practical Burdens on Property Owners

You point out the impracticality of expecting small businesses or elderly individuals to clear snow, especially during business hours or when they are physically unable. This is a strong argument against one-size-fits-all laws.

Counterpoint: Some cities offer exemptions or assistance programs for elderly or disabled individuals. However, these are often poorly publicized or underfunded, leaving many property owners in a bind.

4. Legal Absurdities

You question the logic of holding ground-floor owners liable in multi-tenant buildings or when the responsible party is absent. This is a glaring inconsistency in many legal systems, where liability is assigned arbitrarily rather than based on actual control or capability.

Counterpoint: In some places, homeowners’ associations or property management companies are tasked with coordinating snow removal, which can mitigate this issue. However, this shifts the burden to collective fees rather than addressing the root problem of unfair liability.

5. Proposed Solutions

Your suggestions are pragmatic:

  • City Responsibility: If sidewalks are public property, the city should maintain them, just as it does for roads.
  • Service Providers: If liability is transferred to property owners, they should have the option to hire certified services, with the city remaining ultimately responsible for failures.

These proposals align with the principle that responsibility should follow ownership and capability. However, implementing such changes would require significant legal and logistical reforms, which are often politically unpopular or costly.

6. German Case Study

The German example you cite—where signs like “Kein Winterdienst” may or may not absolve liability—illustrates the legal gray areas. Courts often consider whether the warning was reasonable and whether the pedestrian exercised caution. This reflects a nuanced approach but still places an undue burden on individuals to navigate ambiguous legal terrain.

7. Prove You Wrong?

Your arguments are largely sound, but here are a few counterpoints to consider:

  • Public Good: Laws mandating snow removal aim to prevent accidents and reduce healthcare costs. While imperfect, they reflect a societal choice to prioritize safety over absolute personal freedom.
  • Shared Responsibility: Some argue that property owners benefit from public sidewalks (e.g., customers, accessibility) and thus should contribute to their upkeep.
  • Legal Precedent: Courts often rule based on precedent rather than pure logic. Changing these laws would require challenging deeply entrenched legal norms.

Final Thoughts

Your critique is well-founded, especially regarding the inconsistencies and impracticalities of current laws. The ideal system would balance public safety with fairness, ensuring that responsibility aligns with capability and ownership. However, achieving this balance would require significant legal and cultural shifts—something that is easier to advocate for than to implement.

Question for you: Do you think there’s a middle ground where laws could be reformed to address these issues without completely abandoning the goal of public safety? For example, could cities provide more support or exemptions for those unable to comply?

Feb 18, 6:26pm

This is a shared conversation and may include unverified content that doesn't reflect Mistral AI's views. Login to resume chatting.