“By its plain terms, the duty to use reasonable care to remove ice and snow after a storm doesn’t apply to specific patches of ground. Rather, it applies to all of a business’s outdoor areas all at once… That’s how weather works.”
The court concluded that when inclement weather creates widespread icy conditions, a plaintiff is not required to show prior notice of a specific hazard. The mere occurrence of a storm constitutes sufficient notice to trigger a business’s duty of care.
The panel also raised concerns about the evidence presented by Walmart. Though one employee testified that the parking lot had been salted and cleared by a contractor earlier that morning, video surveillance showed the contractor’s truck entering and exiting the lot in mere moments, with no clear indication of any treatment. Additionally, the store manager testified that he neither observed salt nor knew of a contractor working that day.
Due to conflicting accounts and gaps in evidence, the judges ruled that the matter should be decided by a jury.
The panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Pamela A. Harris, Julius N. Richardson, and A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr.
Plaintiff Lois Ann Brown is represented by Allen David Hawkins of Overbey Hawkins Wright & Vance PLLC and Chad A. Mooney of Petty Livingston Dawson & Richards PC. Walmart is represented by Victor S. Skaff III of Glenn Robinson Cathey Skaff & White PLC.
The case is Lois Ann Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, Case No. 24-1102, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
