Slip & Fall

February 13, 2019

Massachusetts Appeals Court Declines to Apply Exception to 30-Day Notice Requirement in Recent Slip-and-Fall Case

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: riopatuca / Shutterstock.com

Some laws can lead to harsh results, but when courts apply these laws they generally do so because of an honestly held belief that they are enforcing the law exactly as it is written. In a recent slip-and-fall case before a Massachusetts appeals court, the court dismissed the claim even though the plaintiff claimed she could not have known who the responsible party was within the allotted time.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff stepped on an uneven depression in a road in Boston and seriously injured her left foot. She notified the city of her claim within thirty days, and almost three months later, the city denied liability and claimed the Boston Gas Company was the responsible party. The plaintiff sent notice to Boston Gas the next day, and later filed a complaint against the city and the gas company.

Evidently, Boston Gas moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the plaintiff failed to timely file notice of the claim. In this case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff did not notify the gas company within thirty days. However, the plaintiff argued that her failure to comply with the notice requirement was excusable because it was “virtually impossible” to know that the gas company was the responsible party within the thirty-day period.

January 14, 2019

Winter Slip-and-Fall Accidents in Massachusetts Due to Snow or Ice Accumulations

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: designer491 / Shutterstock.com

As a general rule, property owners have a duty to those whom they invite onto their land to ensure that the property is reasonably safe and that visitors are warned of any hazards that are present on the property. While this duty applies to landowners year-round, the majority of Massachusetts slip-and-fall cases occur in the harsh winter months, where sidewalks and parking lots often more closely resemble ice rinks than pedestrian walkways.

When it comes to snow or ice accumulations on their property, Massachusetts landowners must “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.” However, that was not always the case. It used to be that Massachusetts landowners were only responsible for “unnatural” accumulations of snow or ice until the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued an opinion abolishing the distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations.

The Factual Basis of the Plaintiff’s Claim

As the court explained the facts, the plaintiff was injured in a grocery store parking lot when he slipped and fell on a chunk of ice that had become frozen to the parking lot pavement. On the day of the plaintiff’s accident, it was not snowing, but it had snowed earlier that week. The grocery store had hired another company to clear the store’s parking lot, and although much of the lot was clear, there were several piles of snow.

July 2, 2018

Massachusetts Supreme Court Holds Public Housing Development Property Owner Liable for Damages from Injury

by Neumann Law Group

A resident of a public housing development in Framingham was seriously injured after slipping and falling on the stairs. He filed a claim for damages against the Framingham Housing Authority, Musterfield Place, LLC, (a “controlled affiliate” of the housing authority), and the managing agent of the property. The owner and managing agent of the property filed a partial summary judgment motion that would classify them as public employers. Under the Tort Claims Act, public employers are only liable for damages up to $100,000. The court denied this motion and instead classified the manager and owners of the building as “controlled affiliates.” As “controlled affiliates” they are not public employers and thus do not get the benefit of the damage cap. If you are injured at your apartment building or at another location, you should contact a skilled Massachusetts premises liability attorney as soon as possible to help represent you. This decision allows injured people the ability to collect the full damages they are due for their injuries.

Facts of the Case

The building that Plaintiff lived in had been identified as being in need of rehabilitation in 2009. As the housing authority did not have the money themselves to fix the building, private investors bought in to the property partially to get the tax credits associated with the investment. In order to help raise money for low income housing, the housing authority allows these investors to buy and sell the tax credits that they have no use for, as they are not subject to federal taxes. These investors are then deemed “controlled affiliates.” A controlled affiliate is an entity that owns and manages public housing. In return for the tax credits, the affiliates must keep the property affordable for low and moderate income renters for 15 years.

September 21, 2017

State Appeals Court Upholds Ruling for Plaintiff Following Hospital Slip & Fall

by Neumann Law Group

A Connecticut resident filed suit for negligence after injuring herself while walking to the Danbury Hospital parking lot. She prevailed during a bench trial, and the defendant appealed. The Connecticut Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, which may be interesting to Massachusetts slip and fall claimants as well.In June 2010, the victim and her daughter were visiting the victim’s husband, who was being treated at Danbury Hospital. After their visit, they exited the hospital’s main building and walked onto a walkway leading toward the parking lot. They were familiar with this walkway, since they had made this same trip several times in the past.

While they were walking along the pathway, the victim hit something with her foot and fell to the ground. As a result of the fall, she sustained injuries to her right foot and ankle. It later was determined that she had broken her big toe and damaged the fifth metatarsal of her right foot. Within minutes of the fall, she was taken to Danbury’s emergency room, where she was examined and treated for her injuries. As a result of her fall, she experienced chronic lower back pain from a protruded disc that required several epidural steroid injections and, eventually, a surgical decompression procedure. The lower court ruled for the victim following a bench trial.

On appeal, the defendant first claimed that the trial court erroneously found that the defect in the walkway that caused the plaintiff’s injuries was a reasonably foreseeable hazard. The appeals court disagreed, reasoning that the trial court reviewed reports prepared by members of the defendant’s security and medical staff, as well as photographs depicting the alleged defect and the surrounding area, and it heard the testimony of the plaintiff and her daughter describing the fall and the defect. The trial court therefore had before it adequate evidence of a broken slab of pavement that contained a chip in a well-traveled walkway that had existed for a sufficient period of time. Thus, the appeals court concluded that the findings related to this claim were not clearly erroneous, and the conclusions were not unreasonable.

July 3, 2017

Massachusetts Appeals Court Upholds Ruling For Defendants Following Apartment Slip & Fall

by Neumann Law Group

A plaintiff was injured after she tripped on a bent stake jutting onto the walkway outside her condominium unit. She thereafter filed suit, alleging that the owner of the complex, Huntington Wood Condominium Trust, and the contractor responsible for snow removal, The Green Company Landscape & Irrigation, Inc., negligently maintained a hazardous condition that caused her injury. The superior court disagreed, finding that she failed to establish that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of a supposedly dangerous condition. The judge therefore granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed, and the Massachusetts Court of Appeals affirmed.She alleged that in mid-March 2010, she injured herself when she tripped on a stake that poked out onto the walkway next to her condo unit. She passed that stake approximately three times that day before falling. She noticed that it was bent but did not realize it was jutting out onto the walkway. In the evening, she walked to her car. When she returned from her car, she tripped over the stake.

November 23, 2016

Massachusetts Appeals Court Upholds Ruling for Defendants in Sidewalk Slip and Fall

by Neumann Law Group

Plaintiff Eric Halbach suffered serious injuries when he tripped on uneven pavement on a public sidewalk next to a building owned by the defendants. Halbach and his wife, Kathleen, subsequently sued, alleging that the defendants had a duty to either repair the sidewalk or warn pedestrians and the city of Boston of the hazard. Concluding that no such duty exists, a judge of the Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The appeals court affirmed.In June 2009, Halbach was walking on Clarendon Street in the city, near the John Hancock garage. He tripped and fell on uneven pavement on a part of the sidewalk next to the garage, sustaining significant injuries as a result. The sidewalk where Halbach fell is owned by the city. At the time of the fall, the commercial property adjacent to the sidewalk was owned by defendant 100 & 200 Clarendon Street LLC and maintained by defendant Normandy Real Estate. After the incident, Normandy hired a company to grind down the uneven payment at a cost of $798.

July 27, 2016

Massachusetts Appeals Court Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment for Defendant Following Store Slip and Fall

by Neumann Law Group

A Massachusetts appeals court recently reversed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment to a defendant retail store following the plaintiff’s injury in the store, despite admitting that the plaintiff did not have a very strong case.Defendant Boys in Berries, LLC operates a farm and retail store in Sharon, Massachusetts. In July 2010, Maria Belanger arrived at the farm store with her husband, Ray, entering the store while her husband stayed in the car. Belanger selected a few items to purchase and went to check out. At the end of the checkout counter was a large cardboard box placed on top of a wood pallet. The box and pallet were directly adjacent to the end of the checkout counter, set back several inches from the vertical surface of the counter. From the checkout line, the top of the box was visible, but the square pallet on which it rested could not be seen. While in line, Belanger noted that the box was octagonal.

May 16, 2016

Massachusetts Appeals Court Finds Genuine Factual Dispute Regarding Whether Auto Body Shop Caused Dangerous Ice on Which Plaintiff Fell

by Neumann Law Group

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant A Plus Auto Body regarding a plaintiff’s lawsuit for negligence following a slip and fall.In February 2013, plaintiff Nicole Fleming parked her rental car on Walnut Street while going to retrieve her own car from A Plus. As she exited her car, she slipped and fell on a patch of ice and broke her leg. Fleming sued, alleging that A Plus’ negligence caused her injury. The trial court granted A Plus’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it did not own or control Walnut Street, a public way, and that there was no evidence that it created a buildup of ice on Walnut Street. Fleming appealed.