Borders v. Roseberry Case Brief: Homeowner Liability for Natural Ice and Snow Accumulations

Borders v. Roseberry, 216 Kan. 486 (1975)

Court: Supreme Court of Kansas
Year: 1975

Facts: Plaintiff, Borders, was visiting the home of defendant, Roseberry, when he slipped and fell on ice that had accumulated on the front steps. Borders filed a lawsuit against Roseberry, alleging negligence in failing to remove the ice or warn of the danger, thus causing his injuries.

Issue: Is a homeowner liable for injuries sustained by a social guest due to natural accumulations of ice and snow on the premises?

Holding: No, a homeowner is generally not liable for injuries sustained by a social guest due to natural accumulations of ice and snow.

Reasoning: The court reasoned that a homeowner does not have a duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow or to warn social guests of such conditions. The rationale is that the danger posed by natural accumulations of ice and snow is considered open and obvious, and social guests are expected to take care of their own safety under such conditions. The court also noted that imposing such a duty on homeowners would be unreasonable and impractical.

Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Roseberry, finding that he was not liable for Borders' injuries because the danger was open and obvious, and there was no duty to remove the natural accumulation of ice or to warn the guest.

Similar Cases:

**1. Quinn v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 318 S.W.2d 316 (Mo. 1958): In this case, the court held that a property owner is not liable for injuries sustained by a visitor due to natural accumulations of ice and snow on the premises, emphasizing that such conditions are considered open and obvious.

**2. Mattson v. St. Luke's Hospital of Duluth, 252 Minn. 230 (1958): The court held that a hospital was not liable for a visitor's fall on ice in a parking lot because the ice was a natural accumulation, and the visitor should have been aware of the danger.

**3. Murphy v. Carron, 277 S.W.2d 698 (Mo. 1955): This case supported the principle that property owners are not required to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow or to warn of such conditions, as they are considered open and obvious dangers.

Cases Cited in Borders v. Roseberry:

**1. Schofield v. Wood, 135 Kan. 249 (1932): This case established that property owners are not liable for injuries caused by natural accumulations of ice and snow, as such conditions are open and obvious.

**2. Walker v. Memering, 103 Ind. App. 257 (1937): The court held that property owners are not responsible for injuries sustained by social guests due to natural accumulations of ice and snow, reinforcing the open and obvious danger doctrine.