Private Plows & Sand Trucks: When Winter Creates the Hazard
Contractor vs. municipality vs. property owner
Winter crashes in Maine don’t always happen because of “bad weather.” Sometimes they happen because a plow or sand truck creates a new, avoidable hazard—a frozen ridge across a travel lane, a windrow that forces cars into oncoming traffic, a snowbank that blocks sight lines at an intersection, or loose sand and gravel scattered where drivers need traction and control.
When that happens, injured people often ask: Who’s responsible—the driver, the plow contractor, the town/state, or the property owner who hired the service? The answer depends on where the plowing happened, who controlled the work, and whether the hazard came from natural accumulation or from negligent operations.
Below is a practical guide to how liability usually gets sorted out.
The hazard isn’t the snow—it’s what the plow left behind
A winter maintenance vehicle can create danger in several predictable ways:
- Windrows and berms left across lanes or at driveways that harden into ice
- Snow piles that block visibility at intersections, driveways, and crosswalks
- Uneven plowing that creates ruts, “one-lane” narrowing, or abrupt drop-offs
- Sand/salt placement that leaves slick marbles of sand on pavement during thaw/freeze cycles
- Material spills from a sand truck or dump body that reduce control in curves or braking zones
These hazards matter because they often show up after the storm, when drivers believe roads are “cleared” and return to normal speed.
A key Maine rule: the State and towns often aren’t liable just because the road is snowy or icy
Maine law gives strong protection to government entities for winter conditions. In particular, Maine provides that “[t]he State or the town shall not be liable for accidents while the road surface is covered with snow or ice.”
That immunity can shut down claims that basically say, “The road was slippery.” It pushes the analysis toward a more specific question:
Did winter maintenance create a separate hazard beyond the ordinary presence of snow and ice—or did a plow/sand vehicle negligently cause the crash?
When a municipal plow or sand truck causes a crash, the vehicle-use exception can apply
Even though immunity is broad, Maine’s Tort Claims Act includes exceptions. One of the most important involves vehicles: a governmental entity can be liable for negligent acts or omissions in its ownership, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles, machinery, and equipment.
That matters when a town plow:
- sideswipes a vehicle,
- backs into a car while clearing an intersection,
- throws debris or snow into traffic due to careless operation,
- operates at an unsafe speed for conditions, or
- causes a collision through inattention or fatigue.
MaineDOT’s “Legal Winter Road Questions and Answers” also highlights this exact point, listing liability exposure tied to the negligent use of snow plows, graders, and dump trucks under the Tort Claims Act framework.
Bottom line: If the crash flows from how the plow/sander operated as a vehicle, the case often looks like a standard negligence case—just with government-specific limits and procedures.
“Repair operations” vs. snow removal: don’t assume the road-work exception saves the claim
People sometimes hear that towns can be liable for negligent “repair operations.” Maine does recognize liability for negligent acts occurring during road construction, street cleaning, or repair operations.
But MaineDOT’s legal guidance warns that “street cleaning” does not mean snow and ice removal—a distinction that often becomes a defense in winter cases.
That means many claims must focus on:
- negligent vehicle operation, or
- negligent creation of a hazard that goes beyond ordinary snow/ice coverage, or
- liability of a private contractor or property owner.
Private plow contractors: often the most realistic defendant
Many Maine towns hire private operators for plowing and sanding. Businesses and homeowners’ associations do the same for parking lots and private roads.
Private contractors do not get governmental immunity just because they contract with a town. MaineDOT’s winter legal guidance states plainly that private contractors are liable (without governmental liability caps) to private parties for property damage and personal injury caused by their negligent acts or omissions while plowing for a municipality.
Even so, duty questions can get complicated. Maine’s Law Court has rejected attempts to impose liability on a plowing contractor where the claimed danger flowed from weather-created slippery conditions rather than a hazard the contractor affirmatively created.
So the practical difference often comes down to evidence:
- Natural accumulation case: “The road was slippery.” (Harder, often barred by immunity and duty defenses.)
- Created hazard case: “The plow/sander left a ridge across the travel lane,” “piled snow to block sight lines,” “spilled sand/gravel,” or “plowed in a way that forced traffic into danger.”
A big liability trigger: pushing snow into the roadway can violate Maine law
Maine law prohibits creating certain snow hazards on public ways. Specifically: “A person may not place and allow to remain on a public way snow or slush that has not accumulated there naturally.”
This statute becomes powerful in cases where a private plow (or even a property owner) pushes snow across a road or leaves an unnatural ridge that freezes into a trap. It also helps establish why the hazard was foreseeable.
The same statute also includes requirements about securing loads like gravel and sand to prevent material from falling or spilling into the roadway—another important angle in sand-truck cases.
Property owners: responsibility doesn’t vanish when they hire a snow contractor
When winter maintenance happens on private property—parking lots, apartment complexes, commercial driveways—injured people often have claims against:
- The snow contractor (negligent plowing/sanding, creating piles that block visibility, failing to address known refreeze zones), and/or
- The property owner/manager (poor snow plan, failure to correct recurring hazards, dangerous traffic flow, ignoring complaints).
Maine cases emphasize that a non-possessor contractor can face liability when it negligently creates a dangerous condition, but courts scrutinize whether the contractor’s actions actually created the hazard versus weather merely producing winter conditions.
Evidence that decides “who caused the hazard”
These cases are won with documentation, not assumptions. Helpful evidence often includes:
- plow route logs / dispatch records (town or contractor)
- contractor invoices showing dates/times and scope (plow vs sand vs salt)
- photos/video of the hazard before it melts or gets re-plowed
- 911 calls and incident reports about the same spot
- witness statements (“that ridge was there all morning”)
- dashcam footage showing windrows, narrowed lanes, or visibility blockage
- truck GPS/telematics and spreader settings (for sand/salt)
Notice deadlines can apply fast when a town or the State may be involved
If a government entity might share responsibility, Maine’s Tort Claims Act generally requires notice within 365 days after the claim accrues, with specific content and delivery rules. Missing that deadline can end the claim even if the facts are strong.
Talk with Peter Thompson & Associates
Winter maintenance should make roads safer—not create the next crash. If a private plow, sand truck, or winter contractor left a dangerous condition, or if a municipal plow’s operation caused your collision, Peter Thompson & Associates can investigate who controlled the work, preserve time-sensitive evidence, and identify which insurance coverage applies.
If you were hurt in a Maine winter crash and you suspect plowing or sanding created the hazard, contact Peter Thompson & Associates to discuss your options.