Ali v. City of Boston
790 N.E.2d 747, 2003 Mass. App. LEXIS 720, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 439 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The applicability of a recreational use statute, which shields a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence, depends on the plaintiff's specific activity at the time of the injury, not on the general nature of the land. Whether a plaintiff's use of property was for recreation or for another purpose, such as transportation, is a question of fact for a jury when the evidence is in dispute.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, who did not own a car, used his bicycle as his primary means of transportation.
- On the evening of March 12, 1997, the plaintiff was riding his bicycle home from a store through Franklin Park, which is owned and maintained by the City of Boston.
- He chose the park route because he considered it a safer and easier way home, away from vehicle traffic.
- While riding on a paved path in the park, he collided with a large metal gate that the city had installed across the road.
- The area around the gate was unlit, and there were no warning signs posted.
- The plaintiff, who used the path almost daily, had never seen the gate before the accident.
- As a result of the collision, the plaintiff was thrown from his bicycle and sustained significant injuries.
- The City of Boston allows the public to use Franklin Park free of charge.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the City of Boston in Superior Court, alleging negligence.
- The plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint to add a claim for wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct.
- The city filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the negligence claim was barred by the recreational use statute and the evidence for reckless conduct was insufficient.
- The Superior Court judge (trial court) granted the city's motion for summary judgment on both grounds.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Massachusetts's recreational use statute, which grants landowners immunity from ordinary negligence claims by those using the land for recreational purposes, bar a claim from a plaintiff who was injured while bicycling through a public park as a means of transportation from a store to his home?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowin, J.
No. The recreational use statute does not necessarily bar the plaintiff's claim because its immunity applies only when a plaintiff is using the land for a recreational purpose at the time of injury, and here there is a genuine factual dispute as to the nature of the plaintiff's use. The court reasoned that the statute does not confer blanket immunity on landowners who make their property available to the public for free. Instead, the applicability of the statute is determined by the nature of the plaintiff's use, not the nature of the land itself. The court found that a jury could reasonably conclude the plaintiff was using the park for transportation rather than recreation, based on evidence that he did not own a car, was commuting home from a store, and was traveling after dark. Because the nature of the use was a disputed question of fact, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of recreational use statutes by establishing that the plaintiff's specific purpose at the time of injury is the dispositive factor, not the general availability of the land for recreation. It limits the ability of landowners, including municipalities, to obtain summary judgment in negligence cases where an activity, such as bicycling, could be characterized as either recreational or utilitarian. The ruling transforms the application of the statute from a simple question of location into a fact-intensive inquiry for the jury, thereby preserving more claims for trial. This precedent forces a more nuanced analysis of a plaintiff's activities and intentions in future cases involving such statutes.
