High court changes rules on slip-and-fall lawsuits

"It is not reasonable for a property owner to leave snow or ice on a walkway where it is reasonable to expect that a hardy New England visitor would choose to risk crossing the snow or ice rather than turn back or attempt an equally or more perilous walk around it,''
Gants wrote as he laid out the reasoning for undoing the legal precedent in use in Massachusetts courts since 1883 and 1885.

The court said its rules take effect immediately and will also apply retroactively to pending lawsuits.

"We now will apply to hazards arising from snow and ice the same obligation that a property owner owes to lawful visitors as to 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 ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Emanuel Papadopoulos against the Target store chain and Weiss Landscaping, the snowplow company Target hired to clear the snow and ice form its store in the Liberty Tree Mall in Danvers, the court said.

In 2002, Papadopoulos slipped on ice that was caused when snow, piled near a handicapped parking space, melted, then refroze. Lower courts had ruled in favor of Target and Weiss Landscaping, based on the old rules that drew a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" ice.

Now, the SJC said, Papadopoulos can go ahead with his lawsuit.

Martin J. Rooney, a Boston lawyer who filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the Defense Lawyers Association of Masaschusetts, predicted the SJC ruling would generate more lawsuits over the next several years.

"There is no safe harbor now,'' Rooney said. "The SJC has indicated everything is fair game, and we are going to let the juries sort this out.''