• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Keches Law Group is now the official law firm of The New England Patriots - Learn More

offical injury law firm of the New England Patriots, Boston Bruins and Free Jacks

en_US English
en_US English es_ES Español pt_BR Português do Brasil
Free Confidential Consultation  (617) 898-0808

Keches Law Group

Workers' Compensation and Injury Lawyers

  • Home
  • Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Class Actions
    • Employment Law
    • Social Security Disability
    • Accidental Disability Retirement
    • Insurance Disputes
  • Case Results
  • Client Reviews
  • About
    • News & Media
    • Careers
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • No Fee Policy
    • Keches Cares™ Giving
    • Scholarship Essay Contest
    • Attorney Referrals
  • Search
  • Contact Us
  • en_USEnglish
  • es_ESEspañol
  • pt_BRPortuguês do Brasil

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Class Actions
    • Employment Law
    • Social Security Disability
    • Accidental Disability Retirement
    • Insurance Disputes
  • Case Results
  • Client Reviews
  • About
    • News & Media
    • Careers
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • No Fee Policy
    • Keches Cares™ Giving
    • Scholarship Essay Contest
    • Attorney Referrals
  • Search
  • Contact Us

Call Now. We’re available 24/7.

Se habla español

(617) 898-0808

Duty to Remedy a Hazardous Condition is Based Upon Foreeseability Not On The Open and Obvious Hazard

You are here: Home / News / Duty to Remedy a Hazardous Condition is Based Upon Foreeseability Not On The Open and Obvious Hazard

March 25, 2014 //  by Keches Law

In January of this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided a Massachusetts case entitled Cracchiolo v. Eastern Fisheries, Inc., et al 740 F 3rd 64. That case involved the death of crew member of a ship that was docked in New Bedford. After a night out, the crew member was returning to the shipyard where the ship was docked. Ordinarily, he would go through a gate but that evening it was locked. There was a second unofficial way into the facility. There was a gap in the fence near the water that allowed crew members to access their boats after hours. Even if a crew member came through this passageway there was a safer way once through the fencing to proceed to the boat. It was a longer route. There was a shorter and more dangerous way used on the night in question. It was icy and snowy which made this more dangerous route a fatal choice as the seamen slipped, fell into the water and drowned. The court said that ‘to prevail on the negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, that the defendant breached this duty, that damage resulted, and that there was a causal relationship between the breach and the duty and the damage. The court stated that the question of breach, damages, and causation are the ‘special province of the jury’. However, the question whether or not the defendant owed a duty of care in the first instance is an issue of law, and may be settled on Summary Judgment if the risk posed by the defendant’s actions were not foreseeable’. The court went on to say Massachusetts may also make this determination after a trial in light of all the evidence.

In this case, the court sited Soederberg v. Concord Greene Condominium 76 Mass.App. Ct. 33 (2010) stating that ‘landowners do have a duty to remove snow and ice accumulations even though those accumulations present open and obvious hazards to visitors. The court explained that the open and obvious nature of the hazard does not negate an owner’s duty to remedy the hazard’. Rather a landowner must remedy snow and ice hazards when he can and should anticipate the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to the invitee notwithstanding it is known or an obvious danger. It went on to say ‘ the plaintiff’s unreasonable decision to enter into an ice hazard could bear on the issue of comparative negligence but that this is a jury question in the plaintiff’s unreasonable behavior will not bar recovery as a matter of law even when other options that voided the ice hazard were available’.

The court went on to site the case of Papadopoulos v. Target Corp, 457 Mass.368 (2010) where the court emphasized the distinction between the duty to warn of dangers and the duty to remedy them. The duty to warn the court reasoned, was typically obviated in snow and ice cases by the fact that the hazard was open and obvious, so a warning would be superfluous. It then explained citing Soederberg v. Concord Greene Condominium that the duty to remedy the danger remained when it was foreseeable that visitors would choose to encounter a hazard despite the open and obvious risk it posed. The court had an interesting quotation ‘it is not reasonable for a property owner to leave snow or ice on a walkway where it is reasonable to expect that a hardy New England visitor would choose to risk crossing the snow or ice rather than turn back or attempt an equally or more perilous walk around it’. Based on that, the court concluded holding that snow and ice accumulation triggered the same duty to remedy as other dangerous condition’.namely the duty to make reasonable efforts to protect lawful visitors against the danger.

The court also cited DosSantos v. Coleta, 465 Mass (2013) which involves setting up a trampoline next to a shallow pool. You can clearly imagine what the case was from there. In DosSantos case the court again indicated that the analysis focuses on the foreseeability of the risk posed by an open and obvious hazard. The court in DosSantos explained that ‘the landowner is not relieved the duty to from remedy an open and obvious danger where the landowner can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause harm to the visitor not withstanding its known and obvious danger’. The court went on to say that ‘Section 343A restatement of torts contemplates that a lawful entrant’s encounter with an open and obvious hazard may in some instances be a result of the entrant’s own negligence. But even if the plaintiff was negligent, plaintiff’s negligence in encountering the danger does not relieve the landowner of a duty to remedy that danger where the plaintiff’s negligent act can and should be anticipated by the landowner’.

In Cracchiolo case, the defendant’s tried to argue and distinguish itself from the DosSantos case as there was no specific intent on the landowner for the fisherman to use this particular entrance. However, the court in deciding and remanding the case for trial stated that the intent is not the focus. The focus should be foreseeability as the ultimate issue. That is, when a landowner should anticipate the harm despite its obviousness.

In the Cracchiolo case, there was some evidence that the landowner should have known that the fisherman would use this route to get to their boats. There wasn’t a lot of prior use but there was some. The court in turn acknowledged that while there was only a little evidence of prior use that actual knowledge is not necessary. Liability exists if the defendant should have known about the use. In this case, the court concluded that a fact finder could find the landowner should have known the gap in the fencing existed and when used it was a risky route.

I think this decision has many applications. It does not obviate the comparative negligence argument. This case is standing for the premise that the open and obvious defense is a comparative negligence argument but it is separate and apart from the duty to remedy the hazard itself. That question then depends upon foreseeability.

Category: News

Looking for help? or just have a question?

Contact us for a free, no obligation consultation today. It won’t cost a thing and it’s 100% confidential.

Call, chat or email us today.

Contact Us

Previous Post: « Excavation and Trench Safety
Next Post: When Company Policies Deviate from OSHA, is it Safe? »

Primary Sidebar

Free Case Evaluation

Call 617-898-0808 for immediate help or fill out the form below and we’ll get back to you ASAP.

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Secure Form

[brb_collection id="2306"]

Footer

About Us
Keches Cares™
Careers
Diversity & Inclusion
Scholarship
Attorney Referrals
No Fee Policy

Recent Blog Posts:

  • Gallery: Salute To Nurses 2025
  • Keches Law Group Proudly Sponsors Boston Globe’s “Salute To Nurses” Celebration
  • We Built This City – Celebrating the workers who keep New England going
  • Keches Law Group Celebrates Five Attorneys Listed Among Best Lawyers®

Contact Us

We are available 24/7 by phone

Se habla Español / Portugues
en_US English
en_US English es_ES Español pt_BR Português do Brasil


Office Hours:
Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM

Saturday, Sunday and evening appointments available upon request.

We’re just a call or click away if you need help.

617-898-0808

Contact Us By Email →

Follow Us:


The Official Injury Law Firm of: official injury law firm

  • Sitemap
  • Privacy Policy
  • ADA Notice
  • Blog
  • Press Releases

Site Footer

We serve all of MA, NH, RI, CT including the following locations: Bristol County including Attleboro, Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton; Norfolk County including Brookline, Dedham, Franklin, Milton, and Quincy; Worcester County including Fitchburg, Leominster, Shrewsbury, Westborough, and Worcester; Hampden County including Ludlow, Springfield, West Springfield, and Westfield; Middlesex County including Cambridge, Framingham, Lowell, and Medford; and Plymouth County including Brockton and Plymouth.

Attorney advertisement disclaimer: the information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Any information submitted through a form is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Copyright © 2025 Keches Law Group · All Rights Reserved

en_US English
en_US English
es_ES Español
pt_BR Português do Brasil