Can I Sue a Business After Slipping on Ice in Missouri?

Short answer: Sometimes. Under Missouri’s “Massachusetts Rule,” a business generally has no duty to clear ice or snow that accumulated naturally and matches the winter conditions everywhere else in the community. That rule is not a free pass. On November 10, 2026, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed summary judgment for a Kingdom City Motel 6 after a guest fell on an uncleared, rutted gravel parking area. The court held that a jury could find the hotel’s actions and inaction created an isolated, artificial condition: leftover snow from an earlier storm, snow plowed off the concrete and piled at the edge, and tire ruts from trucks. Knowing there was a winter storm is not the same as knowing about the specific danger where you fell. This opinion does not hold the hotel liable. It sends the case back for further proceedings.

If you went down in a store lot, a hotel lot, or an apartment walkway this winter, the insurer may tell you nobody owes you anything because “it was icy everywhere.” Sometimes that’s the law. Sometimes it isn’t. The difference is in the details of the spot where you fell.

We handle the civil side of these cases. If you were hurt in a fall, our St. Louis premises liability page and Missouri slip and fall page walk through how those claims work.

What the Western District decided in Woosley v. Super 6 Inn

The case is Jeff Woosley v. Super 6 Inn, L.L.C., d/b/a Motel 6, No. WD88296, decided November 10, 2026, by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Division One. It came up from the Circuit Court of Callaway County. Judge Alok Ahuja wrote the opinion. All three judges concurred. Here’s what the opinion itself says happened.

The hotel is a Motel 6 franchise at 5750 Jade Road in Kingdom City, in Callaway County, along the I-70 corridor east of Columbia. Woosley was a guest there on the night of January 21-22, 2024.

The parking lot had two adjoining areas. One was a concrete pad with marked spaces for passenger vehicles. Next to it was a gravel surface where larger trucks and cargo vehicles parked. The concrete had been cleared of snow from an earlier winter storm. The gravel had not been cleared or treated after that earlier storm. A snow-and-ice management expert said trucks parking on the gravel had left it “all rutted up,” with packed snow and ice in the tire tracks. Snow plowed off the concrete had been pushed to the boundary, causing snow to pile up unnaturally in the gravel area.

On the morning of January 22, light freezing rain mixed with sleet started around 12:15 a.m. and fell off and on until about 10:45 a.m. The rain was falling as a liquid and freezing on the parking lot. Around 6:00 a.m., Woosley learned his work start time had been delayed because of the weather. At that point, untreated, undisturbed outdoor surfaces had less than a half-inch of snow and ice. He put on work boots with heavy tread because he expected ice, went out to start his truck, and came back inside to let it warm up.

About 20 minutes later, still dark, he backed out of a parking space. When he braked, the truck slid on the inclined icy concrete and struck a white work van that was parked partly on the concrete and partly on the gravel. He walked back across the concrete, called the Highway Patrol, and was told it would be a while because there had been a large number of accidents in the ice. The desk attendant could not identify the van’s owner without a plate number.

Between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m., still dark, Woosley went back out to get the plate number and photograph the damage. While walking on the gravel with his phone up to photograph the van, his foot slipped. He fell and struck his left shoulder. He later testified that the whole parking area “was fairly uniformly icy,” but that the place he fell was different: leftover snow from the earlier storm, packed down with tire tracks, with new ice on top of that older snow.

He told the desk attendant, declined bandages, waited for a trooper, declined an ambulance, and drove to an emergency room in St. Joseph. He sued the hotel on March 3, 2024, for negligence and premises liability.

The circuit court granted the hotel summary judgment on August 28, 2025. It held the hotel had no duty, for two reasons: the ice was open and obvious, and under the Massachusetts Rule a landowner has no duty to clear ice from an open-air parking lot when it is actively accumulating as a general condition of the area.

The Western District reversed on both of those grounds and sent the case back. It did not decide Woosley’s third argument, that the hotel had voluntarily assumed a duty to clear the snow and ice.

The Massachusetts Rule, in plain English

Missouri generally requires a business to use reasonable care to make its property safe for guests and other people invited there. The Massachusetts Rule is a limit on that duty.

Under the rule, a landowner is not liable for injuries caused by the natural accumulation of ice or snow from weather conditions that exist community-wide. In the Western District’s words, quoting Brandes v. Bothwell Regional Health Center, 725 S.W.3d 283 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025), “an invitor has no duty to remove snow or ice on outside areas where the snow or ice accumulated naturally as a result of general weather conditions within the community.”

The Missouri Supreme Court adopted that rule in Walsh v. City of St. Louis, 142 S.W.2d 465 (Mo. 1940). It later spread beyond cities, to landlords, businesses, and employers.

The rule has two parts, and both matter:

• The snow or ice must have accumulated naturally.
• The place where you fell must be in the same condition as the rest of the community.

A later court put it this way: “‘Naturalness’ of snow or ice differs from ‘generality,’ and the latter is key.” That’s from Hill v. Barry County, 434 S.W.3d 115 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014). The question, as the Western District quoted from Lehman v. Hug, 614 S.W.2d 732 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981), is “whether, at the location of the fall, the conditions existing at that point were in fact those existing throughout the community.”

If the ice really is just the same storm everybody else is walking through, the business may owe no duty to shovel or salt it. That’s the rule the hotel relied on, and it’s why so many of these claims die early.

When the rule may not apply

The Massachusetts Rule does not cover every winter fall. If the owner, by negligence or by affirmative action, artificially creates a condition that makes passage unsafe, the rule may not apply. The Western District quoted Cooper v. Capital Investment, LLC, 204 S.W.3d 331 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006), for that point.

Woosley offered evidence that he fell because of the artificial condition of the gravel area, not just because of the generally icy morning. According to the opinion, that evidence included three things:

• The hotel had not cleared snow from an earlier storm on the gravel.
• It had pushed snow from the concrete onto the gravel.
• It had allowed vehicles to cut an uneven, rutted surface into that untreated snow and ice.

The court said that evidence, if believed, would establish a localized, artificial condition to which the Massachusetts Rule does not apply. It compared the record to earlier cases where ruts, rough leftover ice, or an unnatural accumulation took the claim away from a blanket “icy everywhere” defense, including Walsh, Carden v. Lester E. Cox Medical Center, 519 S.W.2d 338 (Mo. App. 1975), and Turcol v. Shoney’s Enterprises, Inc., 640 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982).

Here’s the point the Western District kept coming back to. The hotel’s summary judgment papers talked about the concrete lot. Woosley didn’t fall on the concrete. He fell on the gravel. “The right to judgment cannot flow from facts establishing the condition of property where Woosley did not fall.” That’s from Woosley’s reply brief, and the court agreed with the idea.

So the Massachusetts Rule can still knock out a claim when the ice is a general, natural condition. It does not automatically knock one out when the evidence would let a jury find an isolated, man-made condition at the exact place you went down.

“You should have seen it” is often a jury question

The trial court also said the danger was open and obvious as a matter of law. Woosley had already been out to his truck more than once. He was wearing boots because he expected ice. The trial court counted that as his fifth trip to or from the vehicle and treated the ice as something he had already seen.

The Western District said that skipped a step. Woosley’s earlier trips were on the concrete. He had not walked the gravel area where he actually fell. Knowledge of a general ice storm is not automatically knowledge of the specific danger at the spot where you fell. The court relied on Shannon v. Washington University, 575 S.W.2d 235 (Mo. App. 1978), for that distinction.

Missouri also does not treat every visible defect in a walking surface as obvious just because you could have seen it if you were staring at the ground. Pedestrians are not required to walk with their eyes “glued upon” the pavement. And even when a condition is visible, whether you failed to keep a careful lookout, and how obvious the danger was, can be questions for the jury when it assigns comparative fault. The court pointed to Anslinger v. Christian Hospital, 687 S.W.3d 180 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024), on that issue.

Missouri has used pure comparative fault in ordinary negligence cases since Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983). If a jury puts some of the blame on you, your recovery is reduced by that percentage. You are not automatically barred just because you saw that it was winter, or because you kept walking. For more on how those arguments work, see our post on failure to keep a careful lookout and comparative fault.

None of that means you should wander onto ice and assume a business will pay. It means the defense doesn’t get to end the case just by saying you knew it was cold out.

What this ruling does not do

A few limits are worth saying out loud, because this kind of opinion gets over-read.

• The Western District did not find the hotel liable. It held the hotel was not entitled to summary judgment on this record. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
• The court did not abolish the Massachusetts Rule. The rule still applies to natural, community-wide accumulations.
• The court did not reach whether the hotel voluntarily assumed a duty to clear snow and ice.
• The facts matter. Woosley’s evidence was about an untreated gravel truck area, piled snow, and ruts, in the dark, at a specific spot he had not walked on his earlier trips. A fall on a uniformly icy sidewalk that looks like every other sidewalk in town is a different record.
• We are not involved in Woosley’s case and we are not speaking for him or the hotel.

If you were hurt at a hotel, store, restaurant, or apartment property in mid-Missouri, our Columbia slip and fall page covers claims in that part of the state. St. Louis-area falls are covered on our St. Louis slip and fall and St. Louis premises liability pages.

What to do after a fall on ice

The Woosley record is a reminder that the details of the exact spot matter, and they disappear when the sun comes out.

• Get medical care. A shoulder, wrist, hip, or head injury can look minor in a parking lot and not stay that way.
• Photograph and video the exact place you fell, in the condition it was in, from more than one angle. If there are ruts, piles, a melted-and-refrozen ridge, a downspout, or a difference between a cleared area and an uncleared one, get that in the frame.
• Note the time, the lighting, your route, and what you had already walked on.
• Report the fall to the property owner or manager, and keep a copy of whatever they give you.
• If anyone saw you fall, or saw the ruts or piled snow before it was plowed again, get their name and number.
• Save the shoes you were wearing.
• Be careful with recorded statements to the property’s insurer. “Did you see that it was icy?” is a loaded question if they treat “I knew it was winter” as if you knew about the ruts you hadn’t reached yet.

Hold off on posting about the fall on social media. Photos of the ice help your claim. A caption about how you were running late, or a check-in at the same property the next week looking fine, will get used against you. Save the photos for your records and your lawyer. Don’t narrate the fall online.

Injuries that show up after a fall on ice

A fall on ice is a hard fall. You don’t get a chance to catch yourself the way you do on dry pavement. People come down on a wrist, a shoulder, a hip, or the back of the head. We also see back injuries from landing flat, and knee injuries from a foot going out sideways.

Some of that hurts immediately. Some of it shows up the next day. Get checked, and tell the doctor exactly how you fell, even if you feel embarrassed about “just slipping.” A concussion or a fractured wrist is still an injury, whether it happened on a highway or in a motel lot.

What a Missouri ice-fall claim can include

If the property owner or business actually owes you a duty, the claim can include medical bills, now and later. Lost time at work. Pain and suffering. In a serious case, the long-term limits on what you can do. I will not throw out an “average settlement” for a fall on ice. Those numbers you see online are usually from other states, or they are made up. Value depends on the injury, the proof, and the insurance.

How long do you have to file?

Most Missouri personal injury claims must be filed within five years under RSMo 516.120. Wrongful death claims generally have a three-year deadline under RSMo 537.100. Exceptions exist, so get advice about your specific case. Waiting also makes the physical evidence harder to prove, because ice melts.

Frequently asked questions

Can I sue a business after slipping on ice in Missouri?

You may have a claim, but it depends on why the ice was there and what the spot looked like compared with the rest of the community. Under the Massachusetts Rule, a business generally has no duty to clear naturally accumulated ice or snow that matches general weather conditions in the area. If evidence would let a jury find an isolated, artificial condition the owner created by action or inaction, such as piled snow or rutted leftover ice, the rule may not end the case. That is what the Western District held in Woosley v. Super 6 Inn, WD88296 (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 10, 2026). The opinion reversed summary judgment. It did not decide liability.

What is the Massachusetts Rule in Missouri?

It is the rule that a landowner generally is not liable for injuries from the natural accumulation of ice or snow caused by community-wide weather. The Missouri Supreme Court adopted it in Walsh v. City of St. Louis, 142 S.W.2d 465 (Mo. 1940). It applies to cities, landlords, businesses, and employers. It has two parts: the accumulation must be natural, and the place where you fell must be in the same condition as the community generally.

Does a hotel have to salt its parking lot during a storm?

Not automatically, if the ice is a natural, community-wide condition. Hotel guests are typically treated as invitees, which means the hotel generally must use reasonable care to make the property reasonably safe, but the Massachusetts Rule still applies to natural accumulations. In Woosley, the Western District did not create a special hotel-only duty. It held that evidence of an untreated, rutted gravel area and piled snow could take the claim outside the rule and to a jury.

If I knew it was icy, do I lose my slip and fall case?

Not automatically. Knowledge of a general ice storm is not the same as knowledge of the specific danger where you fell. In Woosley, the guest had already walked the concrete lot and expected winter conditions, but the court held that did not establish, as a matter of law, that he knew about the rutted gravel area. Even if a condition is visible, Missouri juries can consider obviousness and lookout when they assign comparative fault. Your recovery can be reduced by your percentage of fault. You are not barred just for sharing some of the blame.

What if I fell on ice in a store or apartment parking lot, not at a hotel?

The same framework usually applies. The Massachusetts Rule is not limited to hotels. The question is still whether the ice was a natural, community-wide condition or an isolated, artificial one, and whether the danger was open and obvious as a matter of law. The specific facts of the lot, sidewalk, or entrance matter more than the type of business.

What evidence helps in a Missouri ice slip and fall case?

Photos and video of the exact fall location, taken before the ice melts or gets plowed again. Witnesses. Incident reports. Weather records. Maintenance logs and snow-removal contracts. The shoes you wore. Medical records. In Woosley, testimony and an expert description of ruts and piled snow were enough to create a jury question on this record.

What injuries are common after slipping on ice?

Wrist, shoulder, hip, knee, back, and head injuries are the ones we see most. A fall backward can also mean a concussion that does not show up right away. The injury depends on how you came down, not on whether the lot “looked that icy.” Get checked, and tell the doctor the exact way you fell.

What compensation can I recover after a fall on ice in Missouri?

If the claim is valid, it can include medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. I will not quote an average, because there isn’t an honest one. The number depends on the injury, the evidence of the condition where you fell, and the insurance that applies.

How long do I have to file a slip and fall claim in Missouri?

Most personal injury claims must be filed within five years under RSMo 516.120. Wrongful death claims generally have a three-year deadline under RSMo 537.100. Don’t wait on the physical evidence either. Ice and ruts don’t last.