Shipley v. Fifty Associates
106 Mass. 194 (1870)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by the discharge of snow or ice from an artificial structure on their land onto an adjacent public way, regardless of the level of care exercised or the commonality of the structure's design.
Facts:
- The defendants owned a building with a roof situated immediately adjacent to a public street.
- The building's roof was constructed in such a manner that it naturally collected snow and ice.
- Due to the roof's design and the region's climate, it was inevitable that accumulated snow and ice would periodically slide off and fall onto the public sidewalk below.
- The plaintiff, while lawfully walking on the sidewalk, was struck and injured by a mass of snow and ice that fell from the defendants' roof.
- The defendants argued their building was of a common and standard construction and that they had taken all possible precautions to prevent such accidents.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendants, the landlords of the building, in the trial court for personal injuries.
- At trial, the defendants' offer of proof regarding their exercise of due care and the commonality of the building's design was rejected.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendants appealed the trial court's rulings, bringing the case before the present court on a reservation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a property owner liable for injuries caused to a person on a public sidewalk by snow and ice sliding from the owner's roof, when the roof's construction makes such an event inevitable under certain weather conditions, regardless of the owner's diligence or the commonality of the building's design?
Opinions:
Majority - Ames, J.
Yes. A property owner is liable for injuries caused by snow and ice falling from their roof onto a public sidewalk if the roof's construction makes such an event inevitable, regardless of the care taken. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had a right to be on the public sidewalk, and her rights are equivalent to those of an adjoining landowner. A property owner cannot use an artificial structure to collect water, snow, or ice and discharge it onto a neighbor's property or a public way. This principle, embodied in the maxim 'Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas' (use your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another), imposes a duty that is not a question of reasonable care but one of absolute responsibility. Citing the principle from Rylands v. Fletcher, the court held that one who collects something on their land that is likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at their peril. Therefore, the defendants' defense that their building was of a usual construction or that they exercised diligence is irrelevant; they have no right to construct a building that inevitably subjects passersby to such danger.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strict liability standard for property owners whose artificial structures cause harm to those on public ways. It shifts the legal analysis from a negligence framework, which focuses on the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct, to an absolute duty to prevent harm from conditions the owner creates. The case extends the principles of nuisance and trespass, typically applied between adjacent landowners, to protect members of the public exercising their right to use public thoroughfares. This precedent reinforces that a property owner's convenience in design cannot come at the expense of public safety, especially when the design creates an inevitable and foreseeable danger.
Unlock the full brief for Shipley v. Fifty Associates