Slashdot Mirror

This is identical to the situation where if it snows and you shovel your walkway anyone falling can sue you because you modified the snow. If you just left the snow there and someone falls it is an act of God and there is nobody to sue. So for a very long time in Chicago few businesses and almost no residences in many areas shoveled snow because it could get them sued.

Urban legend. I googled the four words "chicago shovel snow sue" and got three links in the top four that quoted the Chicago municipal code (10-8-180 "Snow and ice removal" and 10-8-190 "Liability for civil damages") which states as follows:

10-8-180 Snow and ice removal.

Every owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or other person having charge of any building or lot of ground in the city abutting upon any public way or public place shall remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk in front of such building or lot of ground.

If the sidewalk is of greater width than five feet, it shall not be necessary for such person to remove snow and ice from the same for a space wider than five feet.

In case the snow and ice on the sidewalk shall be frozen so hard that it cannot be removed without injury to the pavement, the person having charge of any building or lot of ground as aforesaid shall, within the time specified, cause the sidewalk abutting on the said premises to be strewn with ashes, sand, sawdust, or some similar suitable material, and shall, as soon thereafter as the weather shall permit, thoroughly clean said sidewalk.

The snow which falls or accumulates during the day (excepting Sundays) before four p.m. shall be removed within three hours after the same has fallen or accumulated. The snow which falls or accumulates on Sunday or after four p.m. and during the night on other days shall be removed before ten a.m.

(Prior code  36-19)

10-8-190 Liability for civil damages.

Any person who removes snow or ice from the public sidewalk or street, shall not, as a result of his acts or omissions in such removal, be liable for civil damages. This section does not apply to acts or omissions amounting to wilful or wanton misconduct in such snow or ice removal.

(Prior code  36-20)

Source: http://www.amlegal.com/library/il/chicago.shtml

One person noted that they believe that the legend came about after a high-profile case of a business being sued because it allegedly did not clear snow properly.

This is identical to the situation where if it snows and you shovel your walkway anyone falling can sue you because you modified the snow. If you just left the snow there and someone falls it is an act of God and there is nobody to sue. So for a very long time in Chicago few businesses and almost no residences in many areas shoveled snow because it could get them sued.

Urban legend. I googled the four words "chicago shovel snow sue" and got three links in the top four that quoted the Chicago municipal code (10-8-180 "Snow and ice removal" and 10-8-190 "Liability for civil damages") which states as follows:

10-8-180 Snow and ice removal.

Every owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or other person having charge of any building or lot of ground in the city abutting upon any public way or public place shall remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk in front of such building or lot of ground.

If the sidewalk is of greater width than five feet, it shall not be necessary for such person to remove snow and ice from the same for a space wider than five feet.

In case the snow and ice on the sidewalk shall be frozen so hard that it cannot be removed without injury to the pavement, the person having charge of any building or lot of ground as aforesaid shall, within the time specified, cause the sidewalk abutting on the said premises to be strewn with ashes, sand, sawdust, or some similar suitable material, and shall, as soon thereafter as the weather shall permit, thoroughly clean said sidewalk.

The snow which falls or accumulates during the day (excepting Sundays) before four p.m. shall be removed within three hours after the same has fallen or accumulated. The snow which falls or accumulates on Sunday or after four p.m. and during the night on other days shall be removed before ten a.m.

(Prior code  36-19)

10-8-190 Liability for civil damages.

Any person who removes snow or ice from the public sidewalk or street, shall not, as a result of his acts or omissions in such removal, be liable for civil damages. This section does not apply to acts or omissions amounting to wilful or wanton misconduct in such snow or ice removal.

(Prior code  36-20)

Source: http://www.amlegal.com/library/il/chicago.shtml

One person noted that they believe that the legend came about after a high-profile case of a business being sued because it allegedly did not clear snow properly.

This is identical to the situation where if it snows and you shovel your walkway anyone falling can sue you because you modified the snow. If you just left the snow there and someone falls it is an act of God and there is nobody to sue. So for a very long time in Chicago few businesses and almost no residences in many areas shoveled snow because it could get them sued.

Urban legend. I googled the four words "chicago shovel snow sue" and got three links in the top four that quoted the Chicago municipal code (10-8-180 "Snow and ice removal" and 10-8-190 "Liability for civil damages") which states as follows:

10-8-180 Snow and ice removal.

Every owner, lessee, tenant, occupant or other person having charge of any building or lot of ground in the city abutting upon any public way or public place shall remove the snow and ice from the sidewalk in front of such building or lot of ground.

If the sidewalk is of greater width than five feet, it shall not be necessary for such person to remove snow and ice from the same for a space wider than five feet.

In case the snow and ice on the sidewalk shall be frozen so hard that it cannot be removed without injury to the pavement, the person having charge of any building or lot of ground as aforesaid shall, within the time specified, cause the sidewalk abutting on the said premises to be strewn with ashes, sand, sawdust, or some similar suitable material, and shall, as soon thereafter as the weather shall permit, thoroughly clean said sidewalk.

The snow which falls or accumulates during the day (excepting Sundays) before four p.m. shall be removed within three hours after the same has fallen or accumulated. The snow which falls or accumulates on Sunday or after four p.m. and during the night on other days shall be removed before ten a.m.

(Prior code  36-19)

10-8-190 Liability for civil damages.

Any person who removes snow or ice from the public sidewalk or street, shall not, as a result of his acts or omissions in such removal, be liable for civil damages. This section does not apply to acts or omissions amounting to wilful or wanton misconduct in such snow or ice removal.

(Prior code  36-20)

Source: http://www.amlegal.com/library/il/chicago.shtml

One person noted that they believe that the legend came about after a high-profile case of a business being sued because it allegedly did not clear snow properly.

In Chicago, where I live, a "hands free" headset is required by law if you're going to talk on your phone while driving (9-40-260 Use of mobile telephones ). True, "hands free" does not necessarily mean "wireless", but I'd rather not be trying to untangle wires as I pull out my headset to answer a call while on the road. Wireless is a lot easier, safer, and more convenient.

The link in the article was an amendment to the SF Campaign and Governance Conduct Code. The complete code can be found at amlegal.com . That and the definitions within the referenced California Political Reform Act say this applies to the candidates, anyone endorsed or controlled by the candidate, and political committees (commissioned or independant). Doesn't sound like an average blogger to me.

So this isn't a SF-specific issue. It's really California law and SF chose to add language to their local ordinances that specifically defines campaigning to include "electioneering communications". It was in response to a media blitz endorsed by a candidate that used blogs, which were not previously clearly defined as falling campaign finance rules.

I stand by my assertion that this doesn't apply to the average blogger. Just those people under control of the candidate or anyone part of an independant committee as already defined in CA law.

ahajokes.com? I would hardly consider a joke site a credible source about the law :P

I did a quick search of Texas law and Austin city ordinances and didn't find any such prohibition.