Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court rules property owners have to keep their sidewalks free of snow and ice
By adamg on Thu, 02/25/2010 - 11:43am
Good to know for you folks on the other side of 128: The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that property owners have to keep their sidewalks clear of snow and ice.
The ruling comes in the case of a Concord woman who slipped and broke her hip on frozen slush on a walkway at her condo complex on Feb. 5, 2005. A lower-court judge ruled against her under the "open and obvious" doctrine - the slush was such an obvious hazard she shouldn't have attempted to walk across it but instead gone back to her condo and called the maintenance company's answering service to ask that the slush be plowed.
But the appeals court, reaching back to a 1909 Supreme Judicial Court ruling on ice removal, concluded "the open and obvious danger rule does not operate to negate a landowner's duty to remedy hazardous conditions resulting from unnatural accumulations of ice and snow, at least where, as here, those hazards lie in a known path of travel."
The ruling doesn't free the way for Selena Soederberg to collect damages, however, because it hinges on how the judge in the case instructed the jury. The court sent the case back to Superior Court for a determination on whether she should still share some of the blame for her injuries.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Judicial Court recently heard arguments in a lawsuit involving a man who slipped on ice at a Target store in 2002. The court will rule sometime this year on the difference between "natural" and "unnatural" snow accumulation.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Good for the Massachusetts Appeals Court!
This ruling was long, long overdue, and it definitely should apply to cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth! What's unfortunate, however, is that it took a crisis like somebody falling and breaking her hip for them to rule in favor of property owners being required to keep their sidewalks free of snow and ice.
p. s. Here's hoping that the woman with the broken hip makes a speedy recovery.
Speedy recovery?
Since the woman broke her hip five years ago, if she's still recovering it certainly wasn't speedy.
Does it really say that?
The headline does, but the actual text appears to be more about liability and common sense. Perhaps a more accurate headline might be "plaintiff can't expect compensation for injuries sustained in a situation of obvious danger". Does anything in this ruling require anyone to clear their sidewalks? As much as I'd like to hear that, I think the answer is no. My quick read reveals the adjective "unnatural" next to accumulation. This is often used as an excuse by some to avoid shoveling altogether in communities which do not have the courage to adopt their own ordinance and enforcement.
Should landlords and businesses be responsible for removing
snow and ice from the sidewalks on property THEY OWN that the public has access to. Absolutely YES!
Should private property owners be responsible for removing snow and ice from PUBLIC sidewalks adjacent to that private property, as cities and towns are increasingly forcing them to do through legally questionable ordinances and draconian enforcement measures(such as tax liens)? Absolutely NOT!
The City of Boston cited me
The City of Boston cited me for not clearing my sidewalk ($50 is the new rate) a week or two ago on Friday.
I suppose I can thank FELIX D. ARROYO, CHARLES C. YANCEY, and MICHAEL P. ROSS for raising the fine from $15 to $50 and stiffening enforcement regulations.
It snowed 2" Wednesday overnight and I shoveled the walk Thursday. The walk was not completely free from all snow because pedestrians had walked on it before I shoveled it but I shoveled the walk twice to get all loose snow, and all the snow that could be dislodged with a snow shovel. Despite that City of Boston Inspection Services cited me.
I guess they have a zero snow tolerance, now at least on their sidewalk that they own and I shovel ... but certainly not on the street that they own and they plow.
Why do property owners have responsibility for shoveling a walk they do not own, and then get cited with a $50 fine, even when they do their duty to shovel the walk?
I wrote the city to complain but the best they can do is make one ticket go away, they can't figure out how to enforce the law against repeat offenders and leave compliant residents the hell alone.
48" Long Handle Garden Spade
Anonymous writes:
I'm not going to bust your chops for getting the ticket when the city, the commonwealth, the MBTA, the Highway Department (or whoever the hell owns the Pike now), and every other governmental agency and quango gets a pass, but I gotta make a comment about using the correct tool.
You say a lot about snow, snow shovel, and loose snow, but I'm betting your weren't cited for snow, but for hard packed slushy ice.
For that, you need this, a long handed square-ended garden spade. Here's another one.
God help you if you have a brick sidewalk to deal with, but if your sidewalk is reasonably unbroken concrete, this works wonders. With a little bit of solar help there is usually no need for rock salt.
A long handled coal shovel....
... also works. ;~}
Well, if town or city public officials won't remove snow and ice
While I agree that landlords, businesses and property owners must be responsible for removing the snow and ice from their sidewalks and then salting them down after a snowfall or ice storm, I do think that as long as town or city officials won't remove snow and ice from public sidewalks, then, yes, private property owners will have to pick up the slack and be responsible for removing the snow and ice from the stretches of sidewalk that're adjacent to their property. and salting them down afterwards. I see why you think it shouldn't be that way, roadman, but that's the way it is.
I'll also add that private property owners are obligated to be responsible for removing snow and ice from and salting down their doorsteps, their porches and any footpaths that go up to their doorsteps or porches or whatever, because mailcarriers, meter-readers, clients and guests have access to them.
OK. If private property owners WANT to pick up the slack and
remove snow and ice from the public sidewalks in front of their property, that's fine by me. What I object to is the fact that in Boston and other communities, such actions are MANDATED by local law.
Suppose Boston (or another community) decided that they didn't want to expend the time and manpower to plow snow from streets, and proposed an ordinance forcing that responsibility onto private property owners (with a hefty fine or tax lein if they didn't comply)? Apart from being totally impractical, I doubt many property owners would go along with it. Should public sidewalks be any different just because they are sidewalks and not streets? I say no (for one thing, look up the meaning of "double standard").
With respect, "that's just the way it is" does not, IMO, justify the government unfairly shifting their responsibilities onto private property owners. And I don't buy the tired old "they don't have the money" argument. Especially when last year the City of Boston decided it was "necessary" to purchase specialzed smartphones with expensive printers so the "snow shoveling police" can write even more tickets. I wonder here: Public safety - NOT, revenue grab - YES!
As for keeping the porches, stoops, steps, paths, etc. on your private property clear of snow and ice so guests, the letter carrier, and others can safely get between the street and your door, I totally agree with that (and do that on my own property after snowstorms). Among other reasons for doing so, as a private homeowner, your liability should somebody slip and fall because you did NOT do those things has been well established in past court cases. But again, this liability is about what may occur on YOUR private property, and NOT the PUBLIC property that happens to be in front of your house.
For the record - I do not live in Boston, and my community does not presently require residents to shovel the public sidewalks in front of their houses.
roadman; I don't think that a tax lien is a good idea, but
a stiff fine for people who persistently refuse to comply is in order.
While we both agree with the idea that keeping porches, stoops, steps, paths, etc., on one's private property clear of snow and ice so that guests, postal carriers and others will be able to safely get between the street and the door, and that the property owner's liability should one slip, fall and get injured because a given property owner didn't do these things is well established, I stand by my position that property owners are obligated to clear the sidewalk in front of their property of snow and ice, and then salting them down. Both me and my family live in commuties where that's required, and well it should be, imho.
Yeah, was a hard decision for me to parse
I think there are actually several things going on in this decision:
The court did NOT overturn the "Any idiot should know better" doctrine (OK, officially, the "open and obvious" doctrine), which basically says "If you see something that's obviously dangerous and you walk on it anyway, you're an idiot who deserves what you get."
That was at issue in this case, because the frozen slush pile was apparently quite obvious and yet the lady tried walking across it, anyway. But in her defense, the condo association gave her two ways around: Take another route that would have involved walking across a large snow pile (i.e., not really any better) or miss her art class and just go back to her condo and try calling the answering service for the condo association and see if they could get somebody out.
The third issue was the judge in the case muddled his or her directions to the jury.
So the court didn't say the lady's entitled to all the damages she wants. In fact, it sent the case back to Superior Court for a new determination of her relative fault.
But at the same time, the court DID say the open-and-obvious doctrine does NOT excuse property owners from liability from snow and ice issues (hence my headline) - although the SJC could have more to say about this in its own case.
And to answer your question, the decision doesn't address municipal sidewalks since the incident happened entirely on private property.
In sum: If I've completely misinterpreted the decision, somebody please let me know.
I missed that important point
I missed that we're talking about a private sidewalk in this decision.
Thanks Adam, your last note was helpful. I still disagree that the decision amounts to a command to shovel anything, even with liability issues, it only seems to address the 'unnatural' accumulation case, but what do I know. It sounds like there will be rulings on related cases that might help straighten some of that out, and I suspect cities and towns can craft their own ordinances too.
THANKS MIKI
!
Hey eeka!
What's with your usual sarcasm? It's disgusting!
Good to hear!
Now all those hippie photographers won't slip and fall whilst they are being chased away by security guards for trying to take photos of my office buildings for some sort of blog. I'd hate for them to collect unemployment...oh wait you can't if you've never worked. ;)
Ha! That is my favorite
Ha! That is my favorite comment ever. If taking pictures of buildings, yelling at security guards and then blogging about it was a job then the Universal Hub community would be full of millionaires.
you reply to your own shit!?
you reply to your own shit!? you're a fuckin loser
Is there any way this can
Is there any way this can possibly be applicable to those scattered gardens with signs on the gates saying in effect "brought to you by Boston Mayor Tom Menino?" I work in East Boston and there's one on the corner of Marginal Street and Cottage Street and is never shoveled or salted or anything. It just turns into a lumpy patch of ice that forces pedestrians onto the street if they want to avoid slipping. Just because you can't grow anything during the winter doesn't mean there aren't other responsibilities for the privilege of taking that space. Everyone else has to shovel and clear the sidewalk. Why should not these seasonal garden tenders?
Community Gardens
I had the same problem with the community garden near my home. I finally contacted them through the email address on the sign. They sent someone over to shovel the next day.
gahdens
Unfortunately, CGs depends on volunteers, and those that dash out to plant are most often no-shows for snow shoveling duty. (not an excuse, just reality)