Man's fall leads to a change in snow law
By Julie Manganis
Staff writer of the Salem News posted July 27, 2010
DANVERS — An elderly Peabody man's trip to Target to stock up on soap one winter morning ended in a fall and a broken pelvis.
Now, more than seven years later, his case has led to what one lawyer called a "sea change" in the law.
The state's highest court yesterday scrapped a 19th-century standard that absolved property owners of liability for accidents that occurred on "natural" accumulations of snow and ice, in favor of the same legal standard that is applied in all other slip-and-fall cases: Did a property owner use "reasonable care" to ensure that his premises were clear of hazards like snow and ice?
"This is a major, major decision," said former Massachusetts Bar Association President David White of the firm Breakstone, White and Gluck. "It reverses a century-old rule on the duty of landowners and landlords."
It also brings Massachusetts into line with other states, including states that get as much snow — or even more — than the Bay State.
Emmanuel Papadopoulos, now 84, drove to the Target store in Danvers on the morning of Dec. 20, 2002, to buy soap he'd seen advertised on sale. He parked in a handicapped spot, which happened to be next to a large pile of plowed snow.
As he left the store that cold morning and walked back to his car, he slipped on what he described as a "globber" of dirty, icy snow, breaking his pelvis in the fall.
A Suffolk Superior Court judge later dismissed his lawsuit against Target Corp., which owns the lot, and the Weiss Landscaping Co., which had been hired to plow the lot.
The judge found that the "globber" of snow (a word coined, apparently, by Papadopoulos) was a natural result of the snow pile freezing, melting and refreezing, as opposed to an unnatural or man-made condition.
Under a doctrine established in an 1883 case involving a Salem tenement owner, property owners in Massachusetts couldn't be held liable for what Mother Nature left behind, only for hazards that were the result of some action, or inaction, such as ice from a leaking gutter.
But that left a lot of room for interpretation — including in the Papadopoulos case.
The natural vs. unnatural distinction "has sown confusion and conflict in our case law," Supreme Judicial Court Justice Ralph Gants wrote in yesterday's decision.
"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."
The court held that it will now be up to a jury to determine "what snow and ice removal efforts are reasonable in light of the expense they impose on the landowner and the probability and seriousness of the foreseeable harm to others."
The ruling reverses the lower court's dismissal of the case and puts it back on the trial docket.
Emmanuel Papanickolas, the Peabody lawyer who represents Papadopoulos, said his client was "extremely happy" about the ruling.
"The decision is a well-reasoned, well-written decision by Justice Gants, and it's the right decision," Papanickolas said. "It's really a victory for all of the people in Massachusetts."
Papanickolas said injuries from falling on snow and ice can be devastating because they happen so quickly and because "there's no give on ice. It's like crashing into stone."
"I don't care whether it's natural or unnatural," said the lawyer, who called the ruling the most significant one he's achieved in a 50-year legal career. "The standard should be reasonable care. That's the standard for every other situation for a property owner."
"All of the other states seem to be doing just fine with this rule," said Danvers attorney Paul Moraski, who also represented Papadopoulos.
"It's a notice to landowners that they have to use caution," White said.
"You're better protected now," said Moraski, who called the decision "monumental."
"More people are going to clear their sidewalks and lots and clear them properly," Moraski said. "Before, you didn't have any duty to shovel at all."
"The only real losers here are the insurance carriers," Moraski said.
Indeed, the major opposition to the change came from attorneys representing insurance companies — including the lawyers who argued on behalf of Target.
Martin Rooney, who submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association, expressed disappointment in the decision.
"We did not and still do not see any reason for this sea change in the law," Rooney said. "This decision will engender a lot of litigation."
Rooney said that while other states use the "reasonable care" standard, their courts have had time to establish guidelines on what "reasonable" means.
"Right now," he said of yesterday's decision, "it's the wild, wild West."
