Is a Property Owner Liable for Ice and Snow Injuries in Georgia?

Not for ice or snow that accumulated naturally from the weather, in the ordinary case. In Speaks v. Rouse Co. of Georgia (1984), the Court of Appeals held that a shopping mall had “no affirmative duty … to remove the natural accumulation of snow and ice, nor to take actions designed to prevent the possibility of refreezing”. Liability becomes possible when the owner did something that made the ice more dangerous than its natural state, or knew of a hazard the visitor did not.

The Speaks case

After a January 1982 snow and ice storm in the Atlanta area, Irene Speaks drove to Perimeter Mall on a Sunday when roads were substantially clear. Snow and ice remained around the parking area, and she wore rigid-soled shoes for traction. When she left about three hours later, the temperature had dropped to between 30 and 32 degrees, and a thin film of ice had formed on a wet roadway in the parking lot. She slipped and was hurt.

The court started from “the position that the snow and ice … was the result of a natural accumulation and there is no affirmative evidence that the owners … performed any act to make the presence of the ice or snow more dangerous than it was in its natural state of accumulation”. It reasoned that an owner’s duty to remove snow or ice “cannot be greater than the obligation of a municipality in relation to ice which forms on its sidewalks”, and that municipalities are not required to remove ice from melting snow “except where obvious hazards are created by means other than the natural accumulation”. Summary judgment for the mall was affirmed.

Why the rule follows from superior knowledge

Premises liability to an invitee rests on the owner’s superior knowledge of the hazard (Robinson v. Kroger Co., 1997). In Speaks, the court found “no real dispute” that the shopper knew water was present and could freeze and “appreciated the fact that freezing temperatures probably had returned”. A visitor who knows the weather has created icy conditions has knowledge comparable to the owner’s; see the superior knowledge doctrine.

When an owner can still be liable

Speaks itself marks the opening: the result changes when the owner “performed any act to make the presence of the ice or snow more dangerous than it was in its natural state”, or when a hazard is “created by means other than the natural accumulation”. For example, facts like these would raise that question:

• water directed onto a walkway by a gutter, downspout, or drainage the owner controls, which then freezes;
• a leak or sprinkler system that wets a surface in freezing weather; and
• a partial clearing or other step by the owner that leaves a more dangerous surface than the weather alone would have.

Whether a particular condition is “unnatural” is a factual question tied to how the ice formed. The visitor still must show the owner knew or should have known of it, as in any invitee claim; see what you must prove in a Georgia slip-and-fall case.

Rental property

A tenant hurt on ice in a common area of an apartment complex raises the same natural-versus-created question, combined with the landlord’s duties over areas it controls; see landlord liability for common-area injuries.

Evidence that separates natural from created ice

1. Weather records for the days before the fall, including when temperatures rose above and fell below freezing.
2. Photographs showing where the water came from (roof edge, downspout, drain, sprinkler).
3. Maintenance and work-order records for gutters, drainage, and irrigation.
4. Any treatment or clearing the owner did, and when.

Sources

• O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1.
• Speaks v. Rouse Co. of Georgia, 172 Ga. App. 9 (1984)
• Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997)

General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.