If you own or manage a property, you already know you have a duty to keep it safe. But when it comes to snow and ice, the law does not expect you to clear it the second the first flake falls. Instead, courts rely on a concept called “reasonable time.” This is not a fixed number of hours. It is a flexible standard that depends on the facts of each situation. Understanding what constitutes a reasonable time can determine whether you are liable for a slip and fall or whether you can successfully defend yourself.
The reasonable time rule means that after a snow or ice event ends, a property owner is allowed a period to remove the hazard. During that period, they are generally not responsible for accidents that happen. But once that window closes, they can be held liable if they have not acted. The key question in any lawsuit becomes: Was the time between the end of the storm and the accident long enough for a reasonable person to have cleared the area?
Courts look at several factors to decide what is reasonable. The most important is the severity and duration of the storm. If a blizzard dumps two feet of snow over twelve hours, reasonable time is longer than if a light dusting falls for twenty minutes. The reason is simple: you cannot realistically clear snow while it is still coming down heavily. Trying to do so is often pointless, and sending workers out in dangerous conditions can be reckless. Therefore, the clock usually starts ticking after the storm has stopped.
Another factor is the type of property and its hours of operation. A shopping mall open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. has different obligations than a small apartment building. If a storm ends at 9 a.m. on a Tuesday, the mall should have its parking lot and walkways cleared before the lunch rush. But if the storm ends at 11 p.m. when the mall is closed, reasonable time may extend into the next morning so crews can work when it is safe and efficient. Similarly, a 24-hour convenience store must act faster than a church that holds services only on Sunday.
The size of the property also matters. A large grocery store with a sprawling parking lot needs more time than a small coffee shop with a single entrance. Judges expect property owners to have a plan and adequate resources. If you own a big commercial site and you only have one snow shovel and a part-time maintenance worker, a court may find that you are not exercising reasonable care. You are expected to anticipate winter weather and have a contractor or staff ready to respond promptly.
Prior notice of a dangerous condition is another critical piece. Reasonable time only protects you if the hazard is new. If snow has been sitting for three days and you have not touched it, you cannot claim you are still within a reasonable time. Likewise, if ice forms from a leaking downspout or a broken sprinkler, you have immediate knowledge of that artificial condition and must act faster. Natural accumulation of snow and ice is treated more leniently than man-made hazards.
What about ongoing storms? The law generally does not require you to shovel while it is still snowing heavily. However, if the storm is intermittent or light, and a dangerous patch of ice has formed, a court might expect you to salt or sand that specific spot even during the storm. The duty is to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. If it is safe to treat a small icy patch without exposing workers to danger, you should do so.
A common mistake property owners make is assuming that hiring a snow removal contractor shifts all liability away from them. It does not. You are still the property owner and you have a non-delegable duty to keep the premises safe. If your contractor does not show up for two days after a storm, you cannot simply point fingers. You must have a backup plan, or you may be found negligent for failing to oversee the contractor’s performance. The reasonable time analysis applies to you, not just your contractor.
Another factor is the specific location of the hazard. A front entrance where customers must walk is treated more seriously than an unused side door. A parking lot access aisle gets higher priority than a far corner of the lot. Judges know that property owners cannot clear every square inch instantly. They focus on the areas where people are most likely to walk.
Finally, the law does not require perfection. You are not expected to remove every trace of ice or every snowflake. A thin layer of residual ice that is slippery but unavoidable may still lead to liability if you had a reasonable time to address it and did not. But if you salted, sanded, and shoveled promptly, and a patch of black ice still forms overnight, a court may find that you exercised reasonable care.
The bottom line is this: Pay attention to when the storm ends. Have a plan to clear within a timeframe that a jury would find reasonable for your property type, size, and use. Keep records of your efforts. If you do that, you dramatically reduce your risk of paying for someone’s broken wrist. If you delay or ignore the hazard, you are inviting a lawsuit.
