The plaintiffs’ bar must be happy as a whole new world of possibilities has now opened up. Homeowners and Businessowners must now be stationed like airport runway plows to “reasonably” remove the snow, even as it is falling (plaintiff’s version). This goes hand in glove with all the new vehicle snow removal laws that require truckers to climb up 13.5 feet in the air to remove snow from the roof of a traller. All in our ever loving fantasy that the state can force people to do anything to eliminate nearly every risk imagineable. Defendants now don’t seem to have a snowballs chance in Mass.
We live in a state that is gaining in the population of liberal judges who continue to erode the concept of rash and reasonable court decisions. Another cash cow for the plaintiff’s bar and yet another reason for business owners to leave this whacky state. We probably won’t know how badly this decision will impact property owners for several years.
This judge has no common sense. It is impossible to remove all snow and ice in a climate that produces winter weather. It is unrealistic to think anyone can. The “elderly man” should have thought twice about the need to go out in bad weather to Target. I doubt it was an emergency. He’s familiar with the weather and went out anyway. The condition was open and obvious and if Target had no “notice” of a hazardous condition, where is the negligence to support a liability argument? Next time they should rule against stupid old people. This ruling is flawed, ridiculous, and should be challenged.
Some old people don’t have family support have to be independent! Why wasn’t Target more elderly friendly??? They know the risks of operating in NE, that’s why their insurance costs more dummy!
I think the old man deserves every penny he got. Target should have had squeaky clean sidewalks. I don’t care, they have no reason to not be out there clearing the path. Period. They have 5 guys clearing carts don’t they? However, I used to live in Massachusetts, in Triple Deckers, always on the 3rd floor. There are hundreds of these houses, no thousands just in the town I lived in. There is NO WAY the non-live-in owners could keep up with the snow on the stairs on all those houses. We used to just use extreme caution going up and down the stairs, or we would shovel the stairs (and sidewalk) ourselves. So I think the law is nothing but trouble and totally unfair. And by the way, the old people were smart enough to live on the first floor.
I wish you folks would read the article. For starters the court did not find liability it only remanded the decision back to the lower court. I hate to pay slip and falls but as a matter of logic the property owner owes to all invitee’s a reasonably safe property. As Target certainly benefits from 3rd parties coming on site they also owe a duty of care.
The question now becomes one for the courts to decide regarding snow/ice removal what is reasonable.
Wow – A commercial retailer, that probably sells ice melt, should be required to maintain safe access when the business is open. They had the option to not invite customers to the store by closing it. About time MA joined the rest of the country and held businesses responsible to protect invitees.
Old fools like this guy are the same ones who don’t clear their own sidewalks. Many of the comments here are pollyannish and unrealistic. The first (no name) post on “Bad Decision” was spot on. I suggest some of you go back an read it. It is IMPOSSIBLE, IMPRACTICAL, AND UNREASONABLE to expect anyone (private or commercial) to remove 100% of snow and ice. Do you have any clue how much such a ridiculous solution would cost? (only to be reflected in the prices you pay). To any reasonable and prudent person living in cold climates, snow and ice are well known facts of life that you learn to deal with. Just because you fall on you *** doesn’t mean somebody was negligent.
Property owners who make a good faith effort on snow and ice removal (e.g. contract with a professional service) should be immune from such ridiculous liability suits. It’s one thing if you make the attempt and worsen conditions or fail to remedy a known hazard, but otherwise, that’s life. Take this old geezer for example. What was so important he just had to go out ALONE?(where’s his caring family? They’ll show up when they smell money.
Old people have compromised sense of balance, eyesight, are on RX drugs, and are more frail than younger folks. What kind of footwear was involved? Has everyone lost sight of the phenomenon called “ACCIDENT”? Remember, the un-intended event that occurs where nobody is at fault? Personal injury attornies have succeeded in erasing that from most people’s minds. In the words of Forres Gump…..”_hit happens”.
Hey Sanchez – Remember, you may be old at some time :-)
Yes, if a business makes a reasonable effort to protect their invitees, the Court should decide in favor of the business. Hence the need for a reasonable expectation from the invitee as well as the business. Plantiff attorneys are not going to take a case unless they think there is gold at the end of the rainbow.
However, negligent removal of snow and ice is a problem that deserves attention. Let the rulemakers set some common sense guidelines that help both the invitee and the business know what to expect during inclement weather.
As an old businessman, I don’t want my customers hurt because of something I failed to properly address. They are the reason I’m in business.
So now instead of having to determine whether the snow accumulation was natural or unnatural, the determination of liability will hinge on the amount of time it reasonably took to clear the snow before the “victim” fell on it? Brilliant. So, exactly what is reasonable? Must property owners now post a 24-7 vigil to annihilate every scrap of fallen snow so some moron does not step on it? What if it falls faster than a reasonable effort can remove it? The court appears to have made every property owner the insurer of anyone who might enter their property. Do you suppose this might result in higher insurance costs? Nicely done. By the way, isn’t changing the law the legislature’s job? Glad I don’t live there. Maybe I’ll come visit Massachusetts and walk around a bit…in the snow. I will sleep better knowing that if I slip on the plainly visible fresh fallen show, that it’s not my fault, but it is the fault of whoever owned the property where I decided to have my fall. And you wonder why businesses are leaving the state?
First, a naturally occurring weather conditions; such as snow and ice accumulation; should not be a liability imposed on property owners by the courts.
Second, slip and falls liability cases are majorily fraudulent claims. The claiment is trying to win the lottery without buying a ticket.
Third, many of our judges, plantiff attorneys and juries see businesses as having unlimited barrels of money. They fail to realize individual responsibility and normal (average) behavior. Each person should make decisions based on their individual situation. A middle aged person in good health should be less concerned with snow and ice than an elderly person with fragile physical health. Thus, the elderly person should strongly consider his own physical limitations before exposing himself to more hazardous weather conditions.
Where does this court ruling lead us? Is the property owner responsible for patrons injuries caused by hail falling because the property owner did not provide a covered parking area? Are injuries substained by a patron struck by debris while standing in the parking lot watching a tornado?
We have too many attorneys per capita. I would like to find a trial lawyer who specializes in suing other attorneys!
For those of you who dont understand snow – If you are in your office or store at 10 AM working and it snows at a rate of 5 inches per hour, what do you do?
Just keep the shovel constantly moving?
Hire a full time snow removal person to just sit there and wait for it to snow?
I think that a few bad apples give slip and fall cases a bad rap. I recently was hurt in a slip and fall case and I was out of work for 6 months. I luckily got in contact with Slipandfallattorney.com and I was able to to get a fair settlement for my lost wages. Now that I have rebuilt my life I am able to look back in perspective and realize that sometimes these claims are real.
A Slip and Fall from a unmark wet floor from mopping by a business employee is a legitimate claim. A Snow, Ice or Rain Slip and Fall is not the neglience of the business owner rather the acceptance of the risk by the claimant.
We live in a state where there is snow. Watch where you walk! Duh
The plaintiffs’ bar must be happy as a whole new world of possibilities has now opened up. Homeowners and Businessowners must now be stationed like airport runway plows to “reasonably” remove the snow, even as it is falling (plaintiff’s version). This goes hand in glove with all the new vehicle snow removal laws that require truckers to climb up 13.5 feet in the air to remove snow from the roof of a traller. All in our ever loving fantasy that the state can force people to do anything to eliminate nearly every risk imagineable. Defendants now don’t seem to have a snowballs chance in Mass.
We live in a state that is gaining in the population of liberal judges who continue to erode the concept of rash and reasonable court decisions. Another cash cow for the plaintiff’s bar and yet another reason for business owners to leave this whacky state. We probably won’t know how badly this decision will impact property owners for several years.
This judge has no common sense. It is impossible to remove all snow and ice in a climate that produces winter weather. It is unrealistic to think anyone can. The “elderly man” should have thought twice about the need to go out in bad weather to Target. I doubt it was an emergency. He’s familiar with the weather and went out anyway. The condition was open and obvious and if Target had no “notice” of a hazardous condition, where is the negligence to support a liability argument? Next time they should rule against stupid old people. This ruling is flawed, ridiculous, and should be challenged.
Some old people don’t have family support have to be independent! Why wasn’t Target more elderly friendly??? They know the risks of operating in NE, that’s why their insurance costs more dummy!
I think the old man deserves every penny he got. Target should have had squeaky clean sidewalks. I don’t care, they have no reason to not be out there clearing the path. Period. They have 5 guys clearing carts don’t they? However, I used to live in Massachusetts, in Triple Deckers, always on the 3rd floor. There are hundreds of these houses, no thousands just in the town I lived in. There is NO WAY the non-live-in owners could keep up with the snow on the stairs on all those houses. We used to just use extreme caution going up and down the stairs, or we would shovel the stairs (and sidewalk) ourselves. So I think the law is nothing but trouble and totally unfair. And by the way, the old people were smart enough to live on the first floor.
I wish you folks would read the article. For starters the court did not find liability it only remanded the decision back to the lower court. I hate to pay slip and falls but as a matter of logic the property owner owes to all invitee’s a reasonably safe property. As Target certainly benefits from 3rd parties coming on site they also owe a duty of care.
The question now becomes one for the courts to decide regarding snow/ice removal what is reasonable.
Wow – A commercial retailer, that probably sells ice melt, should be required to maintain safe access when the business is open. They had the option to not invite customers to the store by closing it. About time MA joined the rest of the country and held businesses responsible to protect invitees.
Old fools like this guy are the same ones who don’t clear their own sidewalks. Many of the comments here are pollyannish and unrealistic. The first (no name) post on “Bad Decision” was spot on. I suggest some of you go back an read it. It is IMPOSSIBLE, IMPRACTICAL, AND UNREASONABLE to expect anyone (private or commercial) to remove 100% of snow and ice. Do you have any clue how much such a ridiculous solution would cost? (only to be reflected in the prices you pay). To any reasonable and prudent person living in cold climates, snow and ice are well known facts of life that you learn to deal with. Just because you fall on you *** doesn’t mean somebody was negligent.
Property owners who make a good faith effort on snow and ice removal (e.g. contract with a professional service) should be immune from such ridiculous liability suits. It’s one thing if you make the attempt and worsen conditions or fail to remedy a known hazard, but otherwise, that’s life. Take this old geezer for example. What was so important he just had to go out ALONE?(where’s his caring family? They’ll show up when they smell money.
Old people have compromised sense of balance, eyesight, are on RX drugs, and are more frail than younger folks. What kind of footwear was involved? Has everyone lost sight of the phenomenon called “ACCIDENT”? Remember, the un-intended event that occurs where nobody is at fault? Personal injury attornies have succeeded in erasing that from most people’s minds. In the words of Forres Gump…..”_hit happens”.
Hey Sanchez – Remember, you may be old at some time :-)
Yes, if a business makes a reasonable effort to protect their invitees, the Court should decide in favor of the business. Hence the need for a reasonable expectation from the invitee as well as the business. Plantiff attorneys are not going to take a case unless they think there is gold at the end of the rainbow.
However, negligent removal of snow and ice is a problem that deserves attention. Let the rulemakers set some common sense guidelines that help both the invitee and the business know what to expect during inclement weather.
As an old businessman, I don’t want my customers hurt because of something I failed to properly address. They are the reason I’m in business.
So now instead of having to determine whether the snow accumulation was natural or unnatural, the determination of liability will hinge on the amount of time it reasonably took to clear the snow before the “victim” fell on it? Brilliant. So, exactly what is reasonable? Must property owners now post a 24-7 vigil to annihilate every scrap of fallen snow so some moron does not step on it? What if it falls faster than a reasonable effort can remove it? The court appears to have made every property owner the insurer of anyone who might enter their property. Do you suppose this might result in higher insurance costs? Nicely done. By the way, isn’t changing the law the legislature’s job? Glad I don’t live there. Maybe I’ll come visit Massachusetts and walk around a bit…in the snow. I will sleep better knowing that if I slip on the plainly visible fresh fallen show, that it’s not my fault, but it is the fault of whoever owned the property where I decided to have my fall. And you wonder why businesses are leaving the state?
First, a naturally occurring weather conditions; such as snow and ice accumulation; should not be a liability imposed on property owners by the courts.
Second, slip and falls liability cases are majorily fraudulent claims. The claiment is trying to win the lottery without buying a ticket.
Third, many of our judges, plantiff attorneys and juries see businesses as having unlimited barrels of money. They fail to realize individual responsibility and normal (average) behavior. Each person should make decisions based on their individual situation. A middle aged person in good health should be less concerned with snow and ice than an elderly person with fragile physical health. Thus, the elderly person should strongly consider his own physical limitations before exposing himself to more hazardous weather conditions.
Where does this court ruling lead us? Is the property owner responsible for patrons injuries caused by hail falling because the property owner did not provide a covered parking area? Are injuries substained by a patron struck by debris while standing in the parking lot watching a tornado?
We have too many attorneys per capita. I would like to find a trial lawyer who specializes in suing other attorneys!
For those of you who dont understand snow – If you are in your office or store at 10 AM working and it snows at a rate of 5 inches per hour, what do you do?
Just keep the shovel constantly moving?
Hire a full time snow removal person to just sit there and wait for it to snow?
Its impossible to keep up with you dim wits.
What world do you people live in???????
So, basically, there will be a whole new wave of lawsuits to come out of this.
Score one for the tort lawyers.
I think that a few bad apples give slip and fall cases a bad rap. I recently was hurt in a slip and fall case and I was out of work for 6 months. I luckily got in contact with Slipandfallattorney.com and I was able to to get a fair settlement for my lost wages. Now that I have rebuilt my life I am able to look back in perspective and realize that sometimes these claims are real.
A Slip and Fall from a unmark wet floor from mopping by a business employee is a legitimate claim. A Snow, Ice or Rain Slip and Fall is not the neglience of the business owner rather the acceptance of the risk by the claimant.