Papadopoulos v. Target: finally melting away the century-old natural accumulation standard in Massachusetts.

• Author: Savasta, Kayla M.

1. INTRODUCTION

   Most jurisdictions recognize a duty on the part of landowners to keep their premises safe for entrants; however, certain issues surrounding snow and ice removal have caused some jurisdictions to re-evaluate their standards. (1) Premises liability litigation in states that experience snowfall during their winter seasons often involves the property owner's duty to keep premises clear of snow and ice. (2) even though most courts have held that a landlord owes a duty to entrants to maintain safe premises, some jurisdictions, such as Illinois and Ohio, bar recovery when a plaintiff's injury arises from the natural accumulation of snow and ice. (3)

   Plaintiffs in jurisdictions that apply the natural accumulation rule, which bars recovery for injuries caused by snow and ice that have accumulated naturally, are confronted with many obstacles when bringing their claims, specifically overcoming the burden of proof that the landowner had a duty to maintain safe premises. (4) Though this strict standard once prevented many Massachusetts plaintiffs from recovering for injuries sustained due to snowy or icy conditions, Massachusetts has abandoned the natural accumulation standard in favor of the more plaintiff-friendly general premises liability standard. (5) In 2010, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., (6) signifying the end of the centuries' old natural accumulation standard in Massachusetts. (7)

   Premises liability includes a duty of reasonable care to all entrants and has its roots in the latter half of the twentieth century when most jurisdictions abandoned the tripartite system of apportioning liability to entrants based on their relationship to the landowner. (8) Despite the complexities of enforcing the previous natural accumulation standard, the new standard has some landowners concerned over the extent of the duty they now owe to entrants and how this duty might affect them financially, specifically in terms of rising insurance needs and premiums. (9) The natural accumulation standard stands in stark contrast to the needs of society in terms of industrialization and urbanization, which has resulted in a lesser demand for landowner protection. (10) Although the Papadopoulos decision could promote increased litigation for snow and ice injuries, it should not come as a surprise to Massachusetts courts considering the standards that are already in place regarding premises liability and snow and ice removal. (11) This new standard should not be viewed as an increased burden on landowners or a negative impact on the legal system; rather, for those who brave the dangers of our harsh New England winters, it is not only good policy, but is consistent with premises liability laws in Massachusetts and throughout New England. (12)

2. THE SNOWSTORM THAT STARTED IT ALL

   In December of 2002, Emanuel Papadopoulos was visiting the Target department store at the Liberty Tree Mall in Danvers shortly after a large snowstorm had passed through Massachusetts. (13) While walking to his car from Target, Mr. Papadopoulos slipped on a patch of ice and injured his hip. (14) Mr. Papadopoulos brought suit against Target, but despite the legitimacy of his claim and large amount of damages he suffered, the trial court judge granted summary judgment to the defendant, Target, on all claims. (15) The judge, relying on then existing Massachusetts case law, determined that the ice was a natural accumulation based on the likelihood that the snow had formed after running off from the snow pile and refreezing on the pavement, and therefore, any proof of negligence was irrelevant. (16) On appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") decided it was time to revisit and reconsider the viability of this centuries-old standard for apportioning liability for injuries resulting from the accumulation of snow and ice. (17)

   The SJC reversed the lower court's decision and granted Mr. Papadopoulos relief by applying the new standard retroactively. (18) This ruling appears to leave the landowner with a heightened responsibility to all entrants; however, the court argued that this new standard would not create any undue burden on the landowner. (19) The SJC also refused to recognize the "open and obvious" doctrine as a defense in slip and fall cases resulting from snow and ice accumulation because a reasonable person in Massachusetts would conclude it more practical to risk injury on snow and ice as opposed to refusing to leave the home. (20) The SJC also denied the accuracy of the second justification for the natural accumulation rule: removal of natural snow and ice is impractical in a climate that experiences frequent snowfall and icy conditions. (21) Massachusetts was the last state to abandon this standard in New England and has thus created a uniform standard of premises liability on the northern East Coast. (22)

   Although Massachusetts has taken a bold step in the direction of a more plaintiff-friendly premise liability standard, Illinois continues to preserve the natural accumulation standard in both their legal and legislative systems. (23) Many states continue to recognize the "open and obvious" doctrine as a defense to injuries involving premises liability, and some states allow landowners to use this doctrine to defend against injuries caused by snow and ice. (24) Even Connecticut and now Massachusetts, both reasonable care standard states, maintain some leniency for landowners depending upon the parties' notice of hazardous conditions, the landowner's control over the property, and weather related factors. (25) The purpose of having exceptions to a reasonable care standard for premises liability is to avoid imposing a duty on landowners to be insurers of their property, as well as to ensure that the standard does not go beyond the ordinary and predictable duty expected of a landowner. (26)

3. THE BEGINNING AND THE END FOR THE NATURAL ACCUMULATION STANDARD

   In order to understand how the natural accumulation rule developed, it is important to understand the history of premises liability as it was adopted from England into our common law system in the United States. (27) Common law described the relationship between the landowner and the entrant in terms of a tripartite system made up of three classes of entrants--licensee, invitee, and trespasser--with their status determining the duty of care they would receive from the landowner. (28) During the mid-twentieth century, the tripartite system began to erode in the United States after the California Supreme Court abandoned the classification system in Rowland v. Christian, (29) upon determining that the California code governing premises liability between a landlord and a tenant called for a duty of reasonable care. (30) Following Rowland, there was a national movement among courts to abolish the tripartite system. (31) Although many courts have abandoned the tripartite system, most still recognize a landowner's right to exclude trespassers and, implicit in this right, a forfeiture of the duty of reasonable care to trespassers. (32) The natural accumulation standard has always been a notable exception to the reasonable care standard. (33)

   Massachusetts became the first state to judicially recognize the natural accumulation standard in Woods v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., (34) holding that "there was no duty on the part of the [landlord] to the [tenant] to remove from the steps the ice and snow which naturally accumulated thereon." (35) In order for the plaintiff to recover for injuries sustained on snow or ice accumulation, he or she would have the burden of proving that the landowner could have easily removed an unnatural or artificial accumulation of snow or ice. (36) A natural accumulation is snow or ice that accumulates without any act or omission on the part of the landowner whereas an unnatural accumulation is the result of the landowner acting in such a way that creates the snow or ice accumulation. (37) Although the natural accumulation rule works to generally exonerate landowners from liability, many states maintain a different level of liability for common carriers, government entities, and business owners. (38) Even states that have rejected the natural accumulation rule apply different standards of care for business owners, landlords, and government entities. (39) Illinois has specifically granted all residential landowners immunity from injuries sustained from natural accumulations of snow or ice through legislation. (40)

   Many states that experience snow and ice during their winters do not apply the natural accumulation standard, instead requiring that landowners exercise a standard of reasonable care in removing accumulations of snow and ice. (41) This alternative is also known as the Connecticut Rule and has far more support than the natural accumulation standard. (42) This rule is thought to be fair to both the landowner and the entrant because it takes into consideration the landowner's obligations to entrants, the burden of removing snow or ice, the relationship between the parties, the public policy implications, and general fairness. (43) Many states that recognize the Connecticut Rule have also adopted the "storm in progress" doctrine as a guideline for defining the extent of the landowner's duties. (44) The "storm in progress" doctrine is a bright-line rule that allows a landowner reasonable time after a storm to remove snow and ice and protects the landowner from liability for injuries sustained during a snowstorm. (45) Many states that follow the Connecticut Rule maintain separate requirements depending on the type of landowner, such as fewer requirements for municipalities and stricter requirements for landlords and business owners. (46) Still other states attempt to further limit the Connecticut Rule by adopting defensive measures to protect landowners through the application of the "open and obvious"...