SJC'S Reconsideration of Massachusetts Snow-and-Ice Doctrine Pending
By next winter, Massachusetts pedestrians may be owed a greater duty of care on cold, wintry days when walking conditions are hazardous.
Under current Massachusetts law, a property owner is not liable for injuries occurring on his property resulting from the "natural accumulation" of snow and ice. This doctrine, which has been in place for over 125 years, has been criticized in recent years as impractical, arbitrary, and leading to inconsistent outcomes in lawsuits.
However, in February the Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument which requested that it reconsider whether this doctrine, known as the "Massachusetts Rule," should be upheld as a reasonable, useful approach to slip-and-fall cases, or whether the "Connecticut Rule," which is based on a due care standard, is better suited to modern conditions. A decision to adopt the Connecticut Rule would permit liability of a property owner, regardless of whether the snow or ice which caused the injury was a natural or unnatural accumulation.
Proponents of the change suggest that adopting a reasonableness standard instead of a natural/unnatural distinction refocuses the law on safety and reasonable expectations for landowners, instead of how the unsafe condition ended up there. A reasonableness standard would require a determination as to whether the property owner acted reasonably and within a reasonable time to make his premises reasonably safe from accidents involving snow and ice, regardless of the "natural" or "unnatural" manner in which the conditions arose. This obligation would be more consistent with other types of landlord liability.
However, others oppose any change to the long-held rule on the grounds that winter conditions make it impossible to prevent all accidents, and imposing a higher standard of care on landowners would only result in increased litigation with little ground for a landowner-defendant to stand on. Opponents point to the fact that there are numerous exceptions to the current law which would hold property owners liable under the appropriate circumstances. For example, a natural accumulation of snow or ice can become "unnatural" by human alteration, such as footprints or plow tracks, exposing the property owner to potential liability. In addition, a breach of an express or implied agreement to remove snow and ice caused by weather conditions could result in liability to third parties injured by that breach.
The issue continues to be under advisement with the SJC in the case, Papadopoulos, et al. v. Target Corporation, et. al. A decision abandoning the Massachusetts Rule would allow persons injured as a result of hazardous snow and ice conditions to seek recourse for their preventable injuries. Moreover, greater expectations placed upon property owners would help prevent winter-related slips and falls before they result in such injuries.
If you sustained personal injuries as a result of a fall on snow or ice and would like to know if you have a viable claim, please contact us for more information.
Back to top
Leave a comment