singley.org > blog archives > Legal Issues Confronted While Walking 01.29.2004

As Alison pointed out to me the other day, when you see a "Falling Ice" sign outside a tall building, how are you supposed to respond to that? You can dash past the danger zone, looking a bit silly, like you thought for a second you were in a hurry but then decided you were not. You can and stroll on through, looking up and trusting your ability to ice-dodge should a transparent chunk start flying towards your head. There's the option of being extra-cautious and crossing the street to avoid the side of the building all together. But really, what's more likely to happen: getting hit by a car crossing the street or getting thwacked with some occasionally falling ice?

I think most people will go for one last option: just assume it's not going to happen to them. Which, I think, is a pretty good assumption. However, say you are unlucky and an ice ball hits you in the head, knocks you to the ground, and you miss work for a few weeks while you recover. Can you sue the building owners for damages? Naw. Because, you see, you were warned. Those signs exist to exempt the building owner from blame more than anything, I would think.

So the next time you see one of those signs, dash through or wear a motorcycle helmet. Or, do both, while shouting "Thief!! Come back here with my moped!"

Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and warn all of you right now....this following comment is an official "NERD ALERT!" on me...

As a law student, I would like to let you know Eric that you might still be able to sue the building owners for damages, providing you could show exactly what you proclaimed in your post: that a reasonable person would have no idea how to respond to such a warning. Warning signs alone are not a talisman of protection that eliminate all liability; otherwise, owners of a leaking nuclear reactor could just post signs saying "Warning: Radiation' and escape liability.

Of course, you'd also probably have to show that the owner of the building did not take reasonable steps to prevent the injury (by analyzing the costs of prevention via overhead shelters, ice melters on the side of the building, increased signage, etc. versus the cost if someone were struck times the likelihood that anyone is going to be struck).

Thus, if you could show the sidewalk was a heavily walked, almost always travelled thoroughfare (especially during the day, when ice/snow is likely to be melting and thus falling from random skyscrapers), and that the owner could have taken relatively cheap means of preventing the injury (such as building an overhang onto the building that would catch falling ice, or building some type of temporary guard to prevent pedestrians) you would then would be entitled to damages, provided the jury would agree with your case.

In other words, I'm in law school, and I'm a dork, and when I sit in classes that are boring I read singley.org and start thinking about the legal implications of Eric's postings.

How old is this post?