After a Massachusetts Superior Court jury returned a verdict in favor of the estate of a deceased sports pub patron in a wrongful death suit, the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the estate and agreed that it was a question for the Court (not a question of fact for the jury) to determine whether the patron was a trespasser at the time of his fatal accident.
On March 11, 2010, the seventy-four year old patron entered Smitty’s Sports Pub through its rear entrance. Upon entering Smitty’s, the Decedent mistakenly opened a door marked “Employees Only,” believing it was the men’s bathroom. Three doors, designated “Gentlemen,” “Ladies” and “Employees Only,” were all similarly marked, the same color and close to each other. The “Employees Only” door opened directly onto an unlit concrete staircase, which had a drop of nearly three feet. The “Employees Only” door was usually locked during business hours but was not locked at the time of the incident. The patron fell down the steps and died of his injuries two weeks later.
On appeal, Smitty’s argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Smitty’s believed the patron was a trespasser, having entered the door marked “Employees Only.” In the alternative, Smitty’s argued that the determination of whether the patron was a trespasser at the time of the incident should have been a question of fact that was presented to the jury. Had the patron been found to be a trespasser, it is unlikely Smitty’s would have been found liable.
The first element in the estate’s burden of proof was evidence of a duty of care owed to the patron by Smitty’s. Actionable negligence exists when there is a legal duty of care owed from one party to another. Generally, a person lawfully on the premises of another is owed a duty of reasonable care in all circumstances. On the other hand, a person unlawfully on the premises of another, i.e. a trespasser, is not owed a duty of reasonable care in all circumstances. The legal duty of care owed to the injured party, when applied to the facts and circumstances of a case, is often critical in determining whether tort liability exists against a landowner.
Here, Smitty’s argued that the patron was a trespasser, as a matter of law, because he had no right to open the door marked “Employees Only.” The trial judge ruled as a matter of law that the patron was not a trespasser under the facts of the case. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial judge’s ruling, holding that “…when the relevant facts of a case are not in dispute, the plaintiff’s status as a person lawfully on the premises or as a trespasser is a question of law for the court to determine and is not a question of fact for the jury to determine. The judge, therefore, properly ruled that as a matter of law, the [D]ecedent was not a trespasser…” It was then up to the jury to determine whether the evidence established a breach of a duty of care and whether such breach caused injury to the deceased patron.
The jury found that the sports pub was negligent in the maintenance of the property and that this negligence was causally related to the injuries suffered by the patron. It was foreseeable that a patron may open the “Employees Only” door by mistake and it was undisputed that it was his intention to use the men’s bathroom. This is an alarming ruling for landowners and businesses because a broad reading leads to the interpretation that once a person is lawfully invited on to your property, if they are injured, even in a prohibited area, they may be able to bring a lawsuit against you under a negligence standard.
