Slip and Fall Lawsuit Changes Massachusetts Law

A recent case from Massachusetts has resulted in changing how the courts in that state judge the liability of property owners for slip and fall claims due to ice and snow. This case is Papadopoulos v. Target Corporation, 2010 WL 2873540 ( Mass. ).

Papadopoulos went to the mall and parked in front of the Target Store. Target controlled the area of the mall parking lot where Papadopoulos parked and Weiss Landscaping Company was the contractor retained to remove snow and ice from the parking area. After leaving the store, Papadopoulos slipped and fell on a patch of ice in the parking lot and broke his pelvis. He sued Target and Weiss Landscaping.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants because, under Massachusetts law, a property owner did not violate the duty of reasonable care by failing to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice. In this case, while the parking lot had been plowed and was essentially clear, the ice that the plaintiff slipped on had fallen from the snow piled on the median from the plow or had formed when snow melted and ran off the pile and refroze to the pavement. In other words, the ice and snow was a natural accumulation as opposed to an unnatural accumulation and Massachusetts law did not hold a property owner liable in tort for failing to remove this natural accumulation. This is known as the “Massachusetts rule”.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts took this case on appeal and decided to review the history of the Massachusetts rule and its relation to the standard of liability of a property owner for injuries suffered on his property by licensees, invitees, and trespassers. The court said that, like the long-standing distinctions established for premises liability under the traditional classification system, the reliance in Massachusetts on a distinction between natural and unnatural accumulation of snow and ice has sown confusion and conflict in the case law of the state. The court then discarded the distinction, and applied the same obligation that a property owner owes to lawful visitors from the hazards of ice and snow as from all other hazards: a duty to act as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances including the likelihood of injury to others, the probable seriousness of such injuries, and the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk. The judgment of the trial court was vacated and the case was remanded to the Superior Court for reconsideration.

Editor's Note: Although there was no mention of an insurer/insured coverage dispute in this case, it was presented to contrast what was the Massachusetts rule with the Connecticut rule when it comes to premises liability for slip and fall claims. The Connecticut rule, which the majority of states have followed, refers to the reasonable care standard wherein the premises owner is required to exercise reasonable care in preventing dangerous conditions in common areas due to accumulations of snow and ice. Insurers of property owners need to know how courts in the various states address premises liability for slip and fall claims, especially when the slip and fall is caused by ice and snow.