If you suffer a slip and fall injury on an icy sidewalk or a slippery, wet step, the storm doctrine could impact your ability to sue for damages in your case. The storm doctrine is only used in some states. The law can limit a plaintiff's ability to sue businesses for slip and fall accidents that occur on their property in the midst of a storm. The key in this situation is to prove what exactly counts as a "storm." Is a drizzle considered a storm? What about a full-blown ice storm. The courts must declare whether or not the business was caught in a storm before determining how much the plaintiff can receive in damages for the slip and fall accident.

Recently, a case in Iowa highlighted the nature of the storm doctrine and displayed the fact that the storm doctrine is a commonly used tactic. In general, businesses are responsible for slip and fall accidents if the plaintiff can prove that they did not take reasonable steps to maintain a safe premises. If a business did not clear their slippery sidewalks when they reasonably had the time to do so, then they can be held responsible for accidents.

In several states, the courts allow businesses a bit of a break if they can prove that there was a "storm in progress" at the time of the accident. Under this rule, owners have still have a reasonable time in which they need to correct any snow and ice hazards on their property. This is normally a specified amount of hours after the snowfall ends. Any injuries that occur after the time period has passed can trigger liability, but during the storm and the several hours afterwards, those that are injured at a storefront cannot sue the location.

The recent case in Iowa says that a mall is not responsible for a woman who fell in the parking lot when freezing rain was falling from the sky. Allegedly, under the storm doctrine the mall employees had every right to wait until the storm had passed before cleaning up slip and fall hazards in the parking lot. The plaintiff contested this case, claiming that there wasn't even a storm when she was injured. The appeals court sided with courts in other states that ruled that the continuing storm doctrine is not only for blizzard situations.

This doctrine also applies in situations where there is a less severe but still inclement weather. The appeals court sided with the mall owners in this case, leaving the plaintiff without any compensation to cover her injuries. The Iowa case showed how significant the weather needs to be to qualify as a storm. If you have been injured in a slip and fall accident that took place during harsh weather, you will want to get a personal injury lawyer on your side at once.

With the right attorney there to help you, you may be able to prove that the weather conditions do not constitute a storm, and therefore evidence that you deserve compensation for your injuries. If you want more information about the storm doctrine, or want to dispute a claim that was denied due to the storm doctrine, hire a local personal injury attorney to help you today! With the right lawyer on your side, you may be able to tackle your case and prove that you deserve compensation for your injuries. Don't hesitate to hire a local, aggressive attorney to assist you in your case today!