Lady Justice
KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District has upheld a Pettis Circuit Court decision granting summary judgment to Bothwell Regional Health Center in a negligence case brought by a Sedalia man who claimed he was injured after slipping on an icy sidewalk outside the hospital.
In a detailed opinion issued by a three-judge panel, the court ruled that the hospital did not owe a legal duty to remove naturally accumulated snow and ice from its premises at the time of the fall and that no genuine factual disputes prevented judgment as a matter of law, according to the Nov. 12 opinion.
The case stemmed from an incident on Feb. 12, 2020, when Larry Brandes drove to Bothwell after learning his wife had fallen on ice earlier that morning at their daughter’s home.
Snow was falling at the time of his wife’s fall, and Brandes made the trip in wintry conditions after clearing his vehicle. Upon arriving at the hospital, he parked and walked toward the entrance, where he claimed he slipped on a snow- or ice-covered sidewalk.
Brandes reported the fall immediately inside the emergency department, telling a staff member that “someone needed to put some rock salt on those sidewalks.” He then received treatment for his injuries.
Sixteen months later, Brandes filed a premises-liability lawsuit alleging Bothwell was negligent for failing to clear ice and snow.
His petition argued that the hospital had waived sovereign immunity under Missouri’s statutory “dangerous condition” exception and that the sidewalk constituted such a condition because the snow and ice had not been cleaned.
Bothwell denied owing Brandes a duty to remove naturally accumulated winter precipitation and asserted that any hazard would have been open and obvious.
The hospital then moved for summary judgment, relying on the long-established “Massachusetts Rule.”
Under that doctrine, property owners have no duty to remove naturally accumulating snow or ice that results from general weather conditions in the surrounding community.
The hospital argued that the snowfall and winter conditions affected Sedalia broadly that day, meaning it could not be held liable for failing to remove the accumulation by the time Brandes arrived.
Brandes countered that factual disputes remained, such as whether it was still snowing at the moment he fell, whether the sidewalk’s condition was actually general to the community and whether the hospital had assumed a duty through its snow-removal policies.
The trial court allowed additional discovery, and Brandes submitted supplementary materials describing Bothwell’s snow and ice removal practices, which had been explained during a deposition of the hospital’s facilities director.
He argued this evidence showed the hospital had voluntarily assumed responsibility for clearing snow and ice.
After reviewing the full summary-judgment record, the trial court ruled in December 2024 that the uncontroverted facts required application of the Massachusetts Rule.
The court found that Brandes slipped on a sidewalk made slick by snow or a mix of snow and ice and that these conditions were part of the general winter weather affecting Sedalia that day.
The trial court also determined that the hospital had not contractually or voluntarily assumed a legal duty to remove snow and ice and that even if snow removal had begun elsewhere on the premises, the doctrine still applied to areas where it had not yet started.
On appeal, Brandes raised three primary arguments and the appellate court rejected each point.
The panel held that the Massachusetts Rule is not an affirmative defense but a doctrine that negates the existence of a legal duty and, therefore, need not be specifically pled.
The opinion compared the rule to other legal doctrines, such as the public duty doctrine and primary assumption of risk, which also function by negating duty rather than avoiding liability.
The court further held that the presence of falling snow at the exact moment of the fall is irrelevant under the doctrine, which focuses instead on whether the snow or ice accumulated naturally and reflected general community conditions.
The court determined that the trial court properly found no genuine dispute on this issue.
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District case number: WD87735
