eNotes: Virginia – Liability – May 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

VIRGINIA CASE SUMMARY

Woods v. Sing Szechuan Rest., LLC
Virginia Court of Appeals
No. 0916-24-2

Decided: April 1, 2025

The melting and refreezing of snow on public property does not constitute an “artificial condition” created by adjacent property owners.

Background

A delivery driver slipped and fell while picking up food from Defendant’s restaurant in Charlottesville, Virginia. While exiting the premises, Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice located on the city sidewalk outside the restaurant. In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the restaurant had adequate time to ameliorate the condition, as the snow fell 24 hours before the incident. The restaurant filed a demurrer, arguing that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to allege that the ice was located on the restaurant’s premises. The restaurant also argued that it had no duty to maintain city sidewalks outside of the limits of the restaurant’s premises. The Charlottesville Circuit Court sustained the demurrer. Plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff raised several assignments of error on appeal. These mostly concerned whether the restaurant owed Plaintiff a duty to ameliorate icy conditions on city property at the point of ingress and egress to its premises. Plaintiff further contended that the way the restaurant cleared its walkway and the city sidewalk were unreasonable. She specifically contended that the restaurant created the ice on which she slipped and fell, making it an “artificial condition” rather than a “natural” one. Finally, Plaintiff argued that because the restaurant acted affirmatively to clear the city sidewalk, it assumed a continuing duty to keep it clear for the benefit of its invitees, despite the city’s ownership.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It examined the specific duty of care owed by the restaurant. At common law, a business owes no duty to maintain public sidewalks, even if the sidewalks make up the ingress and egress of the premises. The Court acknowledged that the restaurant may owe a duty to use reasonable care when shoveling snow on its own premises. but it held that the melting and refreezing of snow did not constitute an “artificial condition” for which the restaurant would be responsible. It also explained the distinction, noting the creation of large snowbanks may constitute an artificial condition – but merely clearing the existing snow that subsequently freezes on adjacent property does not do so. Finally, the Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to adequately establish the existence of an assumed duty.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicolette DeFrank at (571) 470-0395 or ndefrank@tthlaw.com.