Snow Removal in Community Associations

The Portland metro area and central Oregon are covered in snow and ice. As a result, dangerous conditions may exist in common area parking lots, sidewalks, or roadways.  What is the community association’s obligation to clear or remove natural accumulations of snow and ice?

Some states have adopted the “Massachusetts Rule”. This rule states that property owners have no obligation to remove snow or ice from common areas under an association’s control. However, if the association aggravates the natural conditions, there may be liability.  For example, suppose an association shovels snow from a walkway, but fails to put sand or salt on the surface. The walkway is now covered in a sheet of ice and has created an even more dangerous condition.  In that case, there may be liability.

There are dozens of cases in different jurisdictions dealing with a property owner or association’s obligation for snow and ice conditions. For instance, in a number of cases in which an individual slipped and fell on ice or snow while walking on or across a parking lot, the courts, reasoning in general that a defendant was not liable for slip-and-fall accidents on natural accumulations of snow but could be liable for unnatural accumulations or aggravations of natural conditions, held that it was or could be proven that there was liability because the defendant plowed, sanded, or otherwise cleared the snow in a poor manner, or left icy or slushy ruts or tracks in which the plaintiff slipped.

Many court decisions have found that It is unfair to make a landowner or community association absolutely liable for every slip-and-fall accident on snow in a lot, especially as this would require the owner or association to spend the entire winter clearing the lot on pain of losing a liability suit. Moreover, it is equally unfair to require the lot owner or association to shoulder the expense of plowing and replowing the lot during the course of a continuous storm. In this vein, many jurisdictions have ruled that there is no liability for an accident that takes place while a storm is still going on or a reasonable time thereafter, to give the owner a chance to clear out the lot.

Here are the general rules of thumb for community associations:

1. If the Declaration or Bylaws requires the association to plow, shovel, or clear common areas, the association must do so. Many community associations, particularly in central Oregon, are obligated under the governing documents to provide snow removal.  Use a licensed, insured, and bonded contractor to perform those services.

2. In the case where the association has no obligation for snow removal, there is a potential to create liability if the association engages in those activities.

3. If the association has common areas which are generally open to the public, there is typically an obligation to keep those areas clear of snow and ice, regardless of any requirements in the governing documents.

4. If the association has no obligation for snow removal, but decides to provide that service, it should hire a licensed, insured, and bonded contractor.  The removal of snow or ice must result in a safer condition than leaving the natural accumulation on the common areas.

Disclaimer: By reading the information above, you do not become a client of the firm. The information provided above is based on general legal principles, and may not be applicable to you. If you have a legal issue or question, you should speak with an attorney.

Security Cameras in Community Associations

Much of the case law involving an association’s duty to provide security relies on long standing landlord-tenant laws and cases.  In general, an association has a duty to provide safety and security against foreseeable risks.  There are many cases involving security cameras and community associations.  In one case the court held that an association had a duty to install cameras because of frequent and repeated car break-ins and other criminal behavior in the common area parking lot. Keep in mind that placing security cameras on common property may very well impose or create a duty on the association that may not otherwise exist.  Of course, cameras don’t prevent crimes, they merely record crimes.  But the understanding of the average person assumes that cameras provide some form of actual security.

If the association is aware of repeated criminal acts on common property, it may make sense for the board to install security cameras.  But, there should be actual knowledge—and thus foreseeability—of future acts which a security camera may curtail.

What about signs that say there is surveillance, but there are no actual cameras? The major concern is that owners or guests at the community will see those signs and have a false expectation of safety or security.  In the event a crime occurs on the property, the Association may be exposed to liability if the victim asserts: “I thought there were cameras and video footage may have prevented the incident or allowed the assailant to be identified.”  Generally, it is not prudent to use signage suggesting there are cameras when there are not.

Before making a decision to install security cameras or other security measures, talk with a qualified attorney.

Mapping Community Associations and Crime

How should condominium and homeowners associations handle crime in or around association property?  Proactively and carefully.  Certain steps can be taken by the board, such as improved lighting, upgraded locks, or in some cases, onsite security. Some associations have organized community crime-watch programs.  Be careful though--activities by such groups may not be covered by the association's insurance policy.  Many local law enforcement agencies will help associations and the members learn how to prevent crime, how to report suspicious activities, and steps that can be taken to make your community more safe.

The map below is a small section of Portland, Oregon, showing community associations (building icons) with reported crimes during 2013.