Court Opinion

ID: 9779808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:47:48.753165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:36.286680
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: The natural accumulation rule — or the “Massachusetts rule” as it is commonly known and referred to in treatises and courts around the nation (W Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts §61, at 427-28 (5th ed. 1984)) — is the basis for the majority’s decision in this case. The “Massachusetts rule” allows a property owner to skirt liability for failing to remove a natural accumulation of snow and ice. Significantly, within one week of the issuance of the court’s opinion in this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts unanimously did away with the “Massachusetts rule” in Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 457 Mass. 368, 930 N.E.2d 142 (2010). With that decision, Massachusetts has now aligned itself with the majority of states which follow the reasonable care standard that I outlined in my original dissent. Recognizing the significance of that decision, the plaintiff now seeks rehearing on the point, urging that this court at the very least reconsider the case in light of Papadopoulos. Not surprisingly, the court ignores the request. I say not surprisingly because the court previously ignored the direct implications of the Tort Immunity Act for this case or the viability of the natural accumulation rule in the aftermath of this court’s decision in Ward v. K mart, as I pointed out in my original dissent. Papadopoulos presents the court with another opportunity to explain why it insists on perpetuating a rule that is obsolete and no longer has a basis in modern Illinois tort law regarding premises liability. The court passes on this opportunity and continues to be content simply to stand by its “recognition” of the dangers posed by natural accumulations of snow and ice. To the court, imposing an obligation to remedy those conditions “ ‘would be so unreasonable and impractical as to negate the imposition of a legal duty to do so.’ ” 238 Ill. 2d at 232-33, quoting Trevino v. Flash Cab Co., 272 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1029-30 (1995). These arguments were the central reason for the creation of the Massachusetts rule, which even the Massachusetts supreme court has now abandoned. The Massachusetts court rejected the notion that liability is negated based on the impracticalities or the unreasonableness of snow and ice removal: “This argument \i.e., unreasonableness and impracticality in northeastern winter climate] has proven unpersuasive to every other Supreme Court in New England, which have all rejected the so-called Massachusetts rule of natural accumulation. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island cogently defeated this argument by stating: ‘We believe that today a landlord, armed with an ample supply of salt, sand, scrapers, shovels and even perhaps a snow blower, can acquit himself quite admirably as he takes to the common passageways to do battle with the fallen snow, the sun-melted snow now turned to ice, or the frozen rain. We fail to see the rationale for a rule which grants a seasonal exemption from liability to a landlord because he has failed to take adequate precautions against the hazards that can arise from the presence of unshoveled snow or unsanded or salt-free ice found in the areas of his responsibility but yet hold him liable on a year round basis for other types of defects attributable to the workings of mother nature in the very same portions of his property.’ Fuller v. Housing Auth. of Providence, 108 R.I. 770, 773, 279 A.2d 438 (1971).” Papadopoulos, 457 Mass, at 380, 930 N.E.2d at 151-52. I also take issue with the court’s implicit concern that to impose liability here would somehow overburden the CTA. As the Massachusetts court recognized, the use of a reasonable care standard does not impose any “special burdens” on property owners: “If a property owner knows or reasonably should know of a dangerous condition on its property, whether arising from an accumulation of snow or ice, or rust on a railing, or a discarded banana peel, the property owner owes a duty to lawful visitors to make reasonable efforts to protect lawful visitors against the danger.” Papadopoulos, 457 Mass, at 383, 930 N.E.2d at 154. According to the Massachusetts court, under the reasonable care standard it is for the finder of fact to determine “what snow and ice removal efforts are reasonable in light of the expense they impose on the landowner and the probability and seriousness of the foreseeable harm to others.” Papadopoulos, 457 Mass, at 384, 930 N.E.2d at 154. More importantly, the court acknowledged that the use of such a standard “does not make a property owner an insurer of its property; ‘nor does it impose unreasonable maintenance burdens.’ ” Papadopoulos, 457 Mass, at 384, 930 N.E.2d at 154, quoting Mounsey v. Ellard, 363 Mass. 693, 709, 297 N.E.2d 43, 53 (1973). Rather, under the standard, the snow removal “reasonably expected of a property owner will depend on the amount of foot traffic to be anticipated on the property, the magnitude of the risk reasonably feared, and the burden and expense of snow and ice removal. Therefore, while an owner of a single-family home, an apartment house owner, a store owner, and a nursing home operator each owe lawful visitors to their property a duty of reasonable care, what constitutes reasonable snow removal may vary among them.” Papadopoulos, 457 Mass, at 384, 930 N.E.2d at 154. In light of the above, I continue to believe that the court’s decision in this case is wrong on both a statutory and a common law basis. I would grant rehearing so that this court can issue an opinion which does not ignore the important issues raised in this case. JUSTICE KILBRIDE joins in this dissent.