Court says property owners better do an extra good job of clearing snow and ice this winter

The Supreme Judicial Court today threw out a longstanding Massachusetts legal doctrine that protected property owners against injury claims when they could show the slippery white stuff was "a natural accumulation."

The court made its decision in a case involving a man who slipped and fell on some ice outside a Target store at the Liberty Tree Mall in Danvers in 2002 - and who then sued Target and its snow-removal contractor.

Lower courts had rejected the man's suit, saying Target and the contractor had cleared the path and it wasn't their fault that ice had formed on the path, whether from falling off a load of ice dumped on a median or through melted snow that had refrozen.

But the SJC today overturned the basis of that logic, an 1883 case involving a woman who'd slipped on some ice on her tenement steps, saying the logic used to divide "natural" and "unnatural" accumulations of ice or snow was just too tortured, and flies in the face of rulings on other landlord-liability issues, such as banana peels:

We do not accept this rationale where a property owner knows or has reason to know that a banana peel has been left on a floor by a careless customer; we have long held that the property owner has a duty to keep the property reasonably safe for lawful visitors regardless of the source of the danger.

In sum:

We now discard the distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice, which had constituted an exception to the general rule of premises liability that a property owner owes a duty to all lawful visitors to use reasonable care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances.

Complete ruling.



    Free tagging: 


    SJC Ruling on Snow Clearing

    So when walking downtown to visit my broker (insurance & stock) should I be careful of falling attorneys?

    Voting is closed. 8


    By on

    If the Court is getting tough on property owners who tend to be lackadaisical about or go derelict on their responsibility for clearing and sanding down the sidewalks, driveways, etc. near their properties, I say kudos to them. Far too many people don't bother to clear and salt down their sidewalks or whatever, and it's time that was turned around.

    Voting is closed. 10

    The way I see it, the SJC decision

    By on

    , by putting the onus for snow and ice removal on the property owner, basically invalidates any and all local ordinances that require private home and business owners to maintain public sidewalks that they don't own in the first place.

    Not a bad thing, if you think about it.

    Voting is closed. 9

    That's terrible.

    By on

    That's terrible. Mutli-million dollar slip-and-fall lawsuits have been enriching personal injury lawyers in New York for years, and it won't take long for Massachusetts to get just as bad.

    If you want to stay safe, get some Yaktrax or boots with Vibram soles. Suing property owners after the fact doesn't solve anything.

    Voting is closed. 17

    I disagree, boblothrope.

    By on

    If a property owner doesn't bother to clear his/her sidewalk, front steps or whatever after a winter storm and somebody walking along that uncleared, unsalted stretch of sidewalk falls and gets seriously hurt, the property owner should be liable, in a major way, if s/he goes derelict on his/her responsibility for clearing and salting down his/her sidewalk. Let the property owner learn a lesson, or else make 'em think twice before shirking their responsibility.

    Voting is closed. 12

    It's not their sidewalk.

    By on

    It's not their sidewalk.

    Voting is closed. 15