The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently had the opportunity to rule on the timeliness of snow or ice removal.  The Court addressing the injured parties claim found differences in material facts and remanded the case to the Superior Court.  At issue is when should snow or ice be cleared as to not be liable for any injuries as a result of such ice or snow.  The Court recognized that it had adopted the Connecticut rule and held

“that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the nature of the storm on the day in question.  Because the nature of the storm dictates whether or not the Connecticut Rule applies, this disputed fact was material.  The rationale of the Connecticut Rule is to allow a reasonable time to clear a natural accumulation of snow and ice after a winter storm; thus, the rule is intended to apply to ongoing winter storms resulting in an accumulation of snow, ice, or frozen rain.  Because the parties disputed whether the storm on the day of Sullo’s fall was such a storm, there existed a genuine issue of material fact that made the extreme remedy of summary judgment inappropriate in this case.”  See the entire opinion at: Sullo v. Greenberg