Davis v. Westwood Group
652 N.E.2d 567, 1995 Mass. LEXIS 303, 420 Mass. 739 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's common law duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition for visitors does not extend to altering adjacent public highways which they do not own or control. Voluntarily undertaking a discrete safety measure, such as hiring police for traffic control, does not create a broader duty to ensure safe passage by making physical alterations to the public way.
Facts:
- Westwood Group owned and operated the Wonderland Greyhound Park, which had facilities on one side of Route 1A, a multi-lane state highway, and a parking lot on the opposite side.
- To facilitate patrons crossing from the parking lot to the racetrack, Westwood hired off-duty Revere police officers to direct traffic at a painted crosswalk during race times.
- The officers would walk into the northbound lanes and halt traffic with hand signals to allow groups of patrons to cross the highway.
- On March 11, 1982, the plaintiff parked his car in Westwood's south lot to attend the dog races.
- While the plaintiff was crossing Route 1A in the designated crosswalk, a van driven by Robert Allard, who was under the influence of alcohol, drove past the directing officer, Sabatino Falzarano, and struck the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued Westwood Group and others in a state trial court for negligence.
- A jury returned a verdict finding Westwood 13% liable for the plaintiff's injuries.
- The trial court entered a judgment against Westwood based on the jury verdict.
- Westwood, the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court reversed the trial court's judgment against Westwood.
- Westwood then filed an application for further appellate review with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, regarding the issue of its duty to alter the highway.
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 a landowner who owns property on both sides of a state highway have a legal duty to its patrons to alter that highway, such as by constructing a pedestrian bridge or installing a traffic light, to ensure their safe passage?
Opinions:
Majority - Liacos, C.J.
No, a landowner does not have a legal duty to alter an adjacent state highway to ensure safe passage for its patrons. A landowner's duty of reasonable care is limited to their own premises and does not extend to public highways over which they have no control. The court reasoned that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, not Westwood, owns and controls Route 1A, making the state solely responsible for its design, maintenance, and the installation of traffic control devices. Imposing such a duty on Westwood would unreasonably expand landowner liability and create an unworkable standard. Although Westwood voluntarily undertook the task of hiring police officers to direct traffic, this created only a narrow duty to perform that specific task with due care; it did not create a broader, more onerous duty to physically alter the state highway by building a bridge or installing a traffic light. The court concluded that public policy does not support compelling private landowners to assume the Commonwealth's responsibilities for public highway safety.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional limit of premises liability, clarifying that a landowner's duty of care ends at their property line and does not extend to adjacent public ways. The ruling is significant for its narrow interpretation of the 'voluntary undertaking' doctrine, preventing a limited, good-faith safety measure from exposing a business to liability for failing to implement much larger, more expensive solutions. This precedent protects property owners from being held responsible for dangers on public property they do not control, thereby maintaining a clear distinction between public and private duties and avoiding a chilling effect on businesses that might otherwise take minor steps to improve patron safety.
