Restaurant Owner Not Liable for Icy Conditions on Adjacent Sidewalk
The Virginia Court of Appeals recently issued a published opinion in Woods v. Szechuan Sing Restaurant, LLC, 84 Va. App. 321, 913 S.E.2d 341 (2025), holding that a restaurant owner had no duty to maintain a sidewalk adjacent to its storefront, despite a city ordinance that mandated snow removal. Writing for the Court, Chief Judge Decker affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Amended Complaint on the basis that the restaurant was not required to prevent a “new hazard” from ice that formed after a snowy sidewalk had been cleared.
In January of 2022, Kelly Woods, a food-delivery driver, arrived at the Szechuan Sing Restaurant in Charlottesville to pick up a customer’s order. Upon leaving the restaurant, she slipped and fell on a patch of ice on a sidewalk adjacent to the business. In her Amended Complaint, Woods alleged that, because more than 24 hours had transpired after the “most recent precipitation or snowfall,” the restaurant created an unsafe condition separate and apart from the original circumstances of the snow-covered walkway when the previously-cleared-but-still-wet sidewalk subsequently refroze. The restaurant demurred on the basis that because the City owned the sidewalk, the restaurant had no duty to maintain it. Woods replied that the restaurant had a duty to exercise reasonable care not to create a new hazard.
The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action, concluding that “once the snow or ice [wa]s removed [by the restaurant] pursuant to . . . the city ordinance, there [wa]s no continuing duty on the land holder or the occupier . . . to continue to monitor the conditions on the city’s areas.”
The Court of Appeals rejected Woods’ argument on three grounds. First, the Court opined that the sidewalk was city property and reaffirmed a core rule of Virginia premises liability law: business owners generally do not owe a duty to maintain or monitor public sidewalks, even when those sidewalks are directly adjacent to their property. That responsibility belongs to the locality. This remains true, the Court held, even when a local ordinance requires businesses to clear snow and ice from sidewalks; thus, such ordinances do not create a private right of action and shift civil liability away from the locality. Second, the Court rejected Woods’s contention that she was a business invitee, instead finding that she was a pedestrian on a city-owned sidewalk. Third, the Court rejected Woods’s distinction between “artificial” and “natural” hazards, opining that melting and refreezing of snow – without more – is, by definition, a natural condition.
Why does this case matter for adjusters? This decision provides solid guidance for disposition of claims involving falls on publicly owned sidewalks, especially where:
• The hazard is adjacent to, rather than on, the Insured’s premises;
• The allegedly dangerous conditions were the result of snow or ice; and
• The claimant relies upon a local ordinance or alleges an “invitee” status to establish a duty while not actually on the Insured’s premises.
When coverage evaluations hinge on duty and control, Woods is a helpful guide and a reminder that not every sidewalk-fall near a business creates an insured exposure.