O'Sullivan v. Shaw
2000 Mass. LEXIS 169, 431 Mass. 201, 726 N.E.2d 951 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner has no duty to warn a lawful visitor of an open and obvious danger, as this rule addresses the existence of a defendant's legal duty and was not abolished by the comparative negligence statute that eliminated the affirmative defense of 'assumption of risk.'
Facts:
- The defendants owned a residential property with an in-ground swimming pool that was four feet deep in its shallow end and eight feet deep in its deep end.
- A diving board was affixed to the deep end of the pool, but there were no depth markers or lines demarcating the shallow and deep ends.
- The plaintiff, a 21-year-old guest, had swum in the pool before and was aware of the approximate location and depth of the shallow end.
- On the evening of July 16, 1996, while it was dark and with no underwater lights on, the plaintiff attempted a 'racing dive' into the shallow end.
- He intended to clear the ten-foot expanse of the shallow section but entered the water at too steep an angle, struck his head on the pool bottom, and fractured his cervical vertebrae.
- The plaintiff admitted he knew he could be injured if he hit his head on the bottom of the pool when diving.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendants in Massachusetts Superior Court for negligence.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The Superior Court judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, filed a timely appeal of the summary judgment ruling.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court on its own motion.
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 the 'open and obvious danger' rule, which can negate a landowner's duty to warn, survive the legislative abolition of the 'assumption of risk' defense in a negligence action?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, J.
Yes. The 'open and obvious danger' rule survives the legislative abolition of the 'assumption of risk' defense because the two doctrines are legally distinct. The 'open and obvious danger' rule concerns the threshold legal question of whether a defendant owes a duty of care, which a plaintiff must prove as part of their case. It is an objective inquiry into the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct, presuming a visitor would exercise reasonable care and perceive a blatant hazard. In contrast, the former 'assumption of risk' defense was an affirmative defense focused on the plaintiff's subjective knowledge and carelessness in encountering a known danger. Because the statute only abolished the 'defense' of assumption of risk, it did not eliminate the court's role in determining the existence of a defendant's duty. Applying the rule here, the danger of diving headfirst into the shallow end of a swimming pool is, as a matter of law, an open and obvious danger to a person of average intelligence, relieving the defendants of any duty to warn.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'open and obvious danger' rule's place in modern Massachusetts tort law, clarifying its relationship with the state's comparative negligence system. The court establishes that the rule is not a form of contributory negligence or assumption of risk, but rather a doctrine that defines the scope of a landowner's duty of care. This distinction is critical, as it allows courts to dispose of certain premises liability cases on summary judgment before a comparative fault analysis by a jury is ever reached. The ruling empowers defendants by confirming that they have no duty to warn of self-evident hazards, thereby preventing liability for injuries resulting from a plaintiff's encounter with a clearly perceptible risk.
