What Is the Continuing Storm Doctrine in Iowa?

Living in Iowa, we know that the state gets covered in heavy snow, freezing rain, and there are rapidly changing weather conditions for months. These winter storms often create dangerous conditions on sidewalks, roads, parking lots, and highways. This leads to an increase in accidents, specifically slip and fall accidents and personal injury claims. One topic that often comes up during the winter months is the continuing storm doctrine.

What is the continuing storm doctrine in Iowa? What does it mean and how does it work? Keep reading to find out.

Defining the Continuing Storm Doctrine in Des Moines and Throughout Iowa

The continuing storm doctrine is a legal principle that is used in premises liability cases involving snow and ice. Basically, it says that property owners, including business owners, are not required to immediately remove ice or snow accumulation while a winter storm is actively in progress. Instead, they are given a specific amount of time to address the issue and start ice removal efforts after the storm is over.

The reason behind this is practical. During active snowfall or freezing rain, it is often unreasonable or impossible to keep up with ongoing accumulation and icy sidewalks. Courts recognize this and they understand that this could be ineffective or unsafe to try to remove the natural accumulation if more is on the way.

How Iowa Law Applies the Continuing Storm Doctrine

Though Iowa courts do recognize the continuing storm doctrine, it is not a total shield from liability. Determining if the doctrine applies depends on a number of factors, including the timing of the storm, the actions taken by the property owner, and the weather conditions.

In Iowa, it is expected that property owners keep their property reasonably safe. Just because it snows, that doesn't mean that they no longer have this duty. Instead, this doctrine affects when the duty must be fulfilled.

It's possible to file a lawsuit if a person, for example, falls and gets a traumatic brain injury on someone's property. However, if there was a storm happening at the same time, they may not have any legal liability due to the continuing storm doctrine.

However, if a reasonable period has passed and the property owner still doesn't address the issue, the legal process may begin, even if there was a weather event. For help with the legal process, auto accident attorneys may be able to help.

When the Doctrine May Protect Property or Business Owners

The continuing storm doctrine may apply in Iowa and protect property owners when:

• Snow, sleet, or freezing rain is actively falling at the time of the accident

• The storm has not yet ended or has paused only briefly

• The hazardous condition was caused by fresh accumulation

• The property owner had not yet been given a reasonable opportunity to respond

In these situations, courts may find that a property owner acted reasonably by waiting until the storm subsided before clearing walkways, sidewalks, or parking areas.

When the Doctrine Does Not Apply in a Slip and Fall Accident

The continuing storm doctrine doesn't excuse all winter-related hazards. Iowa courts often look beyond mere precipitation and instead look at whether or not the property owner exercised reasonable care under the circumstances.

The continuing storm doctrine may not apply if:

• The storm had ended hours or days earlier

• Ice resulted from melting and refreezing rather than fresh snowfall

• The property owner ignored known hazards after the storm ended

• Snow removal efforts made conditions more dangerous

• No warning signs or barriers were provided

For example, if a storm ends overnight and a business opens the next morning without clearing icy walkways or applying salt, the doctrine is unlikely to protect the property owner.

Reasonable Time to Act After a Storm

One of the most contested issues in continuing storm doctrine cases is what constitutes a reasonable amount of time to remove snow and ice after a storm ends. Iowa law does not define a specific time frame, such as a set number of hours.

Instead, courts evaluate factors such as:

• Severity and duration of the storm

• Time of day the storm ended

• Type of property involved

• Availability of snow removal resources

• Pedestrian traffic expectations

Commercial properties, apartment complexes, and businesses open to the public are often held to higher standards than private residences, particularly when they invite customers or tenants onto the premises.

The Doctrine in Sidewalk and Parking Lot Cases

The continuing storm doctrine frequently arises in sidewalk and parking lot slip and fall cases. In Des Moines and other Iowa cities, local ordinances may require property owners to clear sidewalks within a certain time after snowfall ends. While ordinance violations do not automatically establish liability, they may influence a court’s analysis of reasonableness.

Parking lots are also closely scrutinized. Property owners who clear driving lanes but ignore pedestrian paths may still face liability if someone is injured after the storm has ended.

Comparative Fault and the Continuing Storm Doctrine

Iowa follows a modified comparative fault system. Even if the continuing storm doctrine does not fully protect a property owner, an injured person’s actions may still affect compensation.

Defendants may argue that the injured person:

• Failed to watch where they were walking

• Ignored visible snow or ice

• Wore inappropriate footwear

• Chose to walk during severe weather

If a court finds that the injured person was partially at fault, any compensation awarded may be reduced accordingly. If the injured person is found to be more than 50% at fault, recovery may be barred entirely.

Evidence That Matters in Continuing Storm Cases

Because the continuing storm doctrine depends heavily on timing and conditions, evidence is critical. Common evidence includes:

• Weather reports showing when precipitation began and ended

• Surveillance footage or time-stamped photographs

• Snow removal and maintenance logs

• Witness statements

• Incident reports

This evidence helps determine whether the storm was ongoing and whether reasonable steps were taken once conditions allowed.

How an Iowa Personal Injury Lawyer Can Help

Continuing storm doctrine cases are often complex and highly fact-specific. Insurance companies frequently rely on the doctrine to deny claims, even when conditions should have been addressed.

An experienced Iowa slip and fall lawyer can analyze weather data, investigate maintenance practices, and challenge improper use of the continuing storm doctrine. Legal counsel can also address comparative fault arguments and ensure that injured individuals are not unfairly blamed for winter hazards. They can consult on snow on car law in Iowa as well.

Contact Tom Fowler Law for a Free Consultation

The continuing storm doctrine plays an important role in Iowa slip and fall and winter injury cases, but it does not automatically prevent injured individuals from seeking compensation. Liability depends on whether a property owner acted reasonably before, during, and after a winter storm.

For individuals in Des Moines injured in snow- or ice-related accidents, understanding how this doctrine applies is critical. Tom Fowler Law helps injured Iowans evaluate their claims, gather evidence, and pursue compensation due to someone else's negligence.

For a free consultation with the law firm and to speak to a personal injury attorney, get in touch today.