Minnesota Appeals Court clarifies when businesses are responsible for ice in parking lot

As Minnesotans go about their day in the treacherous, baby-step conditions of winter, who bears the burden of responsibility when someone gets injured slipping on ice in the parking lot of a business?

The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a ruling last week that provides some clarity. It ultimately boils down to this: Businesses have a responsibility to reasonably clear snow and ice from their parking lots. Beyond that, it’s up to the citizens of Minnesota to tread carefully.

It was a moderate winter morning on Jan. 4, 2021, when Travis J. Maahs parked his truck in a remote area of the Menards’ parking lot in Elk River.

Still, it was Minnesota in winter, frost had accumulated and previous accumulations of snow and ice lingered out of plain sight. Maahs, who was 49 at the time, went inside to shop. He owns his own business, Maahs’ Floor Covering, so he was familiar with the store. His truck was large enough that he needed to park where there was some room to operate. He walked back to his truck pushing a rolling cart to carry his supplies. As he loaded plywood into the back, Maahs slipped on a 12-inch patch of “black ice.”

He shattered his ankle so badly he needed surgery. A little over a year later, he sued Menards for damages over his injuries, his past and future medical expenses, wages lost and his mental and emotional pain and suffering.

His lawsuit was filed in Sherburne County and Maahs asked for a judgment in excess of $50,000.

Maahs argued that Menards was negligent for a few reasons — they had failed to inspect the parking lot, had failed to treat the ice and didn’t warn customers about the ice. Menards asked for a summary judgment, arguing that Maahs couldn’t prove the ice was there for a significant enough amount of time for employees to notice and treat it, and that ice is a completely normal condition of Minnesota winters and, as a Minnesotan, Maahs should have been cautious while walking.

The Sherburne County court sided with Menards. Maahs appealed.

The Court of Appeals was asked to consider what “duty of reasonable care” Menards owed their customers.

Maahs’ lawyer, David Wandling, deposed several Menards employees and learned how they dealt with snow and ice removal.

Menards had contracted with Minnesota Lawn Care to remove ice and plow the parking lot. The agreement called for the company to plow the parking lot and prove “one (1) de-icing application” whenever an inch or more of snow fell. Treatment for any amount under one inch needed to be approved by the Menards general manager.

The general manager of the store had walked the parking lot on the morning Maahs fell. The manager didn’t notice any slippery conditions and paid no mind to the frost on the ground. An employee who came out to help Maahs after the injury also said he only saw frost in the area and hadn’t treated the place where Maahs fell because he hadn’t noticed the ice until after the accident.

Other employees said the store typically treated high-traffic walking areas, including the entrance and exit.

While employees weren’t required to treat the parking lot, they still regularly treated handicapped parking spots, a rental truck parking spot, the areas where shopping carts are left and busy walking paths to and from the parking lot. They also said if someone alerted them to a dangerous area in the parking lot, they treated it.

Still, there was no company policy or training regarding ice safety or removal, and safety protocols in the parking lot were based on observation.

Maahs argued that no matter what observational work the company did, “it’s undisputed that Menards did nothing in terms of inspecting the property,” and that lack of care led to his injury.

The Appeals Court rejected that argument, in a nonprecedential opinion written by Judge Renee Worke, pointing to past cases in Minnesota that focused on negligence and duty to care.

Judicial precedent in Minnesota showed a business needs to protect customers from “being injured by conditions on the property that represent foreseeable risk of injury” but businesses are not “insurers of safety.” Another key element for duty to care comes from whether the business created the dangerous condition that led to injury.

The court found Menards had no knowledge of the ice until Maahs fell and they had not created the icy conditions. They also found that Menards took care of hazardous conditions in the parking lot once they knew about them and no one was aware of the ice until after the accident.

And in a footnote, the court added this: “The evidence also shows that the incident occurred on a winter morning in Minnesota. Maahs was a life-long Minnesota resident. It is expected that ice and frost will be on a surface on a winter morning in Minnesota.”