In the wake of all this snow, this is a timely Newsletter on the subject of Massachusetts personal injury law. The reason is that the law in Massachusetts recently changed in the area of property owner liability for injuries caused by slip and fall accidents due to snow and ice.

The is important because the legal standards and rules that are applied in Massachusetts snow & injury cases are very different now than they previously were. For almost 100 years, the legal question of whether or not a landowner - either a homeowner or commercial property owner - was liable for another person's injuries due to a slip or fall on snow or ice, was extremely complicated and often murky. Why? Because Massachusetts common law previously required judges and juries to make a complicated distinction between "natural'' and "artificial'' accumulations of snow and ice. What's the difference? For almost 100 years, that was a good question - and one that judges themselves often had a hard time answering.

Previously, liability in these types of cases was decided according to the confusing "Natural Accumulation Doctrine" (or the "Massachusetts Rule," aptly named because we were the only state in the Union that employed it.) People who suffered injuries by slipping and falling on snow or ice that had accumulated naturally, and which remained untouched by the owner, were unable to recover from the owner for their injuries. Under that previous, antiquated law, property owners (both personal and commercial) were not liable for injuries resulting from snow that remained un-shoveled & un-plowed , or icy parking lots that weren't sanded. The explanation? Supposedly, these types of conditions were "natural'' conditions, freeing the property owner from liability.

Far worse from sowing such confusion, the old law produced serious inequities between injured persons who could, and could not, recover for many times serious injuries. Believe me, we aren't talking about just sprained ankles here - a fall on snow or ice can result in surprisingly devastating injuries, including broken necks and backs, fractured skulls - even paralysis. The rule also created a disincentive for some property owners to clear their property of snow and ice - because if they did, under the law they would have changed the snow or ice from a "natural accumulation" to an "unnatural accumulation," and hence opened themselves up to potential legal liability for any injuries that resulted on their property. Many property owners were - legally speaking - better off not removing the snow, or not taking measures to sand the ice!  

Thankfully, now all property owners - homeowners or commercial - must take "reasonable measures" to minimize as much as possible any safety hazards created by snow or ice - regardless of whether that snow or ice has been previously shoveled, plowed, or altered in any manner.  Now, a level playing field exists for all plaintiffs and defendants in these types of actions. That's a good thing for people who have suffered serious injuries due to a fall on snow and ice.

The easiest legal translation to all this, and the bottom line? If you own any kind of property, personal or commercial, you must undertake "reasonable measures" to clear your property of safety hazards caused by the presence of snow and ice. Common sense: This means clear the snow and ice as fast and as much as is reasonably possible, and salt or sand any remaining hazard.

If you're someone who has suffered an injury due to a fall on snow or ice on property owned by someone else, contact us for a free consultation.  We have extensive experience in these types of injury cases, and we can help you secure the maximum amount possible for your injuries.