Well, they finally did the right thing. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the Commonwealth's highest court, ruled in the case of Papadopoulos v. Target Corp that differentiating between a "natural" and "unnatural" accumulation of ice or snow - as a basis for liability on the part of a property owner was...well... unnatural, and instead created a new standard for determining the liability of a landowner (or controlling party) to persons injured as a result of a fall on snow or ice.
For those who have not followed this fascinating (NOT) debate, a short summary of the previous test for liability may be instructive.
Under the old rule, if a person slipped and fell on a patch of ice while walking through a mall parking lot, for example, or a friend's driveway, and suffered an injury as a result of that fall, the victim could NOT recover compensation from the property owner UNLESS the victim could prove that the ice that caused the fall accumulated unnaturally - that is - that it was not the product of natural weather conditions. In simple terms: if it rains in Massachusetts and the temperature falls below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, and the puddles of rain turn into sheets of ice - that's "natural". On the other hand, if the property owner, in an effort to clear a path to his car, creates an icy berm that would never have existed but for the pile of snow and ice created by the property owner, and someone trips over that berm, then the accumulation might be regarded as "unnatural", and thereby make the property owner liable for the victim's medical expenses and other losses. The operative word here is "might" - and therein the "problem".
To understand why Massachusetts personal injury lawyers (rather than the lawyers who represent the insurance companies) hated this rule, was that it was often difficult if not impossible to prove whether a particular accumulation of snow or ice was "natural" or "unnatural". Take for example the case of a woman who slips and falls on a patch of ice located directly in front of the entrance to a supermarket. As a result of her fall, the woman suffers a serious closed-head injury, involving bleeding of the brain and a prolonged and expensive hospitalization. An investigation of the accident scene demonstrates that the supermarket's employees had shoveled away the snow leading to the entrance of his store the evening before the accident, and just after a major snow storm. The problem is, they placed the shoveled snow in a pile, slightly uphill from where the entrance to the supermarket was located. As the snow began to melt, water flowed from the pile of snow to the supermarket's main entrance and accumulated as a puddle of water, which later froze as temperatures dropped.
Under the old rule, to recover for her injuries, the victim had to prove that the ice upon which she slipped and fell was "unnatural"; that is would not have existed where it did, and in the form (ice) that it did, had it not been for the actions of the store's employees in creating a snow pile where they did. Seems easy enough - until lawyers for the company insuring the property insisted that the ice upon which the woman fell was entirely "natural"; that it was (natural) rain water, which flowed (naturally) downhill, due to the (natural) force of gravity where it collected and froze (naturally) when the (natural) weather conditions lead to colder temperatures. Was this debate costly and difficult for trial judges to decide - naturally it was.
You see, in almost all other kinds of personal injury cases involving a fall on property, the victim need only show that the property owner failed to maintain his property in "reasonably safe condition"; free of hazards or dangerous conditions that a "reasonable" (more on that word in a future blog post) person would be required to correct. So, for example, if the owners of a strip-mall parking lot perform maintenance on their lot, and leave a puddle of machine oil behind, causing a patron to slip and all, liability on the part of those who should have removed the oil is fairly easy to prove under current law. Nobody need debate whether the oil flowed naturally, or whether motor oil was a natural material, etc., etc. All the victim need show was that the property contained a defect that the property owner knew of - or, in the exercise of due care - was expected to know of - given his duty to monitor, inspect, and otherwise supervise his property for the safety of his visitors. None of this "natural" vs. "unnatural" banter is necessary.
Then - in July of 2010 - just when everyone in Massachusetts is thinking about snow and ice, the "Supremes" decided the case of Papadopoulos v. Target Corp and everything changed. No longer would a plaintiff be required to prove an unnatural accumulation in order to recover. Instead, the high court ruled, the plaintiff would only be required to demonstrate that the property was in defective condition, sufficient to warrant correction by the property owner, as the basis for liability.
Kudos to the SJC for bringing the natural vs. unnatural debate to an end.
