Slipped on Ice in a Parking Lot? What Ohio's 'No-Duty Winter Rule' Means for Your Case

Published November 4, 2025 · Ohio Appeals Courts

Every Ohio winter brings the same phone calls. Someone walked across a parking lot that looked merely wet, hit a patch of black ice, and is now in a cast or a surgeon's office. Their first question is whether the property owner is responsible. Their second is usually, "Doesn't the owner have to salt the lot?"

A decision from the Second District Court of Appeals in Dayton last month answers those questions in a way many people find surprising. With the first freeze of the season approaching, it is worth understanding before you need it.

A father, a dance, and black ice in Kettering

The case is Arnett v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 2025-Ohio-4679 (2d Dist.), decided October 10, 2025. According to the opinion, on a cold, blustery evening in February 2022, Jesse Arnett brought his five-year-old daughter to a father-daughter dance at St. Charles Borromeo School in Kettering. The main lot was full because of a basketball game next door at Archbishop Alter High School, so he parked near the playground behind the school.

Light snow was in the air. The lot was damp, and piles of plowed snow from a storm more than a week earlier sat at various spots. Carrying his daughter toward the activity center, Mr. Arnett walked 25 to 30 feet and slipped on black ice. He suffered a compound fracture of his left leg. Surgeons at Kettering Hospital stabilized the bone with a titanium rod and screws, and the family's complaint alleged more than $120,000 in medical bills. More than two years later, he was still dealing with pain and mobility problems.

He and his wife sued the archdiocese and the parish. The Montgomery County Common Pleas Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Second District affirmed.

The rule: no duty to remove natural ice and snow

Ohio has long followed what courts call the "no-duty winter rule." A business or other property owner ordinarily owes its customers and visitors (in legal terms, "invitees") no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow, and no duty to warn about them. The reasoning, as the court explained, is that the dangers of natural winter conditions are so obvious that everyone is expected to anticipate them and protect themselves.

"Natural" covers more than people expect. In Arnett, the court held that:

• Plowed snow piles are still natural accumulations. Pushing snow into piles does not make it "unnatural."
• Ice from refrozen runoff is natural, too. If melt from a plowed pile refreezes into ice, Ohio courts, including the Second District, treat that ice as a natural accumulation.
• Black ice is expected. The court quoted another appellate decision describing black ice as "an ordinary and expected consequence of winter precipitation."

Because the rule applied, the court did not need to decide whether the ice was "open and obvious." The winter rule, it explained, is even broader.

We want to be plain about this: it is a harsh rule, and it fell hard on a father who was doing nothing more than carrying his child to a school dance. The decision did not turn on anything he did wrong. The law simply places the risk of ordinary winter conditions on the person walking, not the property owner.

The exceptions that still matter

The no-duty winter rule is not absolute. The Arnett opinion recognizes two exceptions, and they are where winter-fall cases are won.

1. Unnatural accumulations. An owner who causes or negligently permits an "unnatural" accumulation of ice or snow can be liable. The court described unnatural accumulations as "man-made or man-caused," as opposed to the product of cold, wind and snowfall. Proving one usually means showing the ice came from something other than the weather, such as water channeled onto a walkway by the building's design, drainage, or a defect the owner should have fixed. Plowing alone, as Arnett shows, is not enough.

2. Superior knowledge. An owner can also be liable if it knew that the natural snow and ice had created a condition substantially more dangerous than visitors would expect from general winter conditions in the area. The classic example the court cited is snow that fills and hides a deep hole the owner knew about.

Relationships can change the duty. The court also discussed older cases recognizing greater duties in certain relationships, such as an innkeeper whose guests had to use icy stairs as the only way in and out, and a landlord whose lease relationship with tenants carries duties for common areas. Those cases did not help Mr. Arnett because he was a visitor, not a tenant or hotel guest. But if you were hurt on ice at your apartment complex, or at a hotel, the analysis may be different. We discussed the basics of these rules in our 2012 post on Ohio's natural-accumulation rule.

Why evidence decides winter-fall cases

Every exception turns on facts that melt away, literally. Where did the water come from? Was there a downspout, a leaking gutter, a broken pipe, or a low spot where the owner knew water collected and froze? Had others fallen in the same place? Had the owner been told? Was there a hidden hazard under the snow?

Answering those questions means acting within days:

• Photograph the spot, the surrounding area, and anything above it (gutters, downspouts, overhangs) as soon as you safely can, or have a family member do it.
• Get the names of witnesses, including anyone who helped you or saw the ice.
• Note the weather. When did it last snow? Was it melting during the day and freezing at night?
• Report the fall in writing to the owner or manager, and ask that video and maintenance records be preserved.

Our guide chapters on the first 72 hours after an injury and gathering evidence while it still exists walk through these steps. The same lesson ran through our March post on a $1.3 million slip-and-fall verdict that was reversed: in premises cases, the evidence gathered in the first days decides what can be proven years later.

What this means for you

If you fall on ice this winter, do not assume you have no case, and do not assume you do. Ohio's rule protects property owners from liability for ordinary winter weather. It does not protect owners who create the hazard, who know about a hidden danger, or who took on a duty to keep you safe. Telling those situations apart requires a quick, careful look at the scene. Our premises liability page explains how we investigate falls.