Massachusetts Snow and Ice Related Liability
Posted by Andy Gregory on Mon, Aug 16, 2010 @ 09:36 AM
The legal landscape in Massachusetts continues to get more slippery with the latest Supreme Judicial Court decision that ruled that property owners can be held liable for snow and ice related slip-and-fall injuries, regardless of whether plows cleared the snow or not. This decision, which goes against a century of case law, makes no distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and/or ice. Past cases in Massachusetts courts ruled decided that property owners who failed to remove "natural" snow and/or ice were not held liable for slip and fall injuries.
The landmark case was that of Massachusetts resident Emanuel Papadopoulos, who sustained injuries when he fell in the icy parking lot of a local Target store in December of 2002. His initial suit against target and its plowing contractor was dismissed by the lower court. Citing the 100 years of case law, the lower court judge ruled that Target was not liable since the icy conditions occurred "naturally". However, the Supreme Court flipped the verdict, ruling that property owners have a duty to keep their property reasonably safe.
The decision, which brings Massachusetts to the standard of most other states for slip and fall suits, "abolishes the distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice, and applies to all hazards arising from snow and ice the same obligation of reasonable care that a property owner owes to lawful visitors regarding all other hazards".
In other words, when the snow falls, clear it. When it melts and ice forms, treat it with salt. This decision rang through the Massachusetts legal community like a dinner bell, and it will more than likely result in increased slip and fall lawsuits in the state. With winter not too far away, now is a good time for property owners to review their snow removal strategies and contractual risk transfer arrangements with contractors.