Published July 27, 2010

People have had emotional reactions to my story about Monday’s Massachusetts SJC ruling on homeowner liability when it comes to icy sidewalks.

I reported an explainer today for Morning Edition. If you missed it, the state’s highest court closed a loophole — rooted in medieval English common law — that has helped many a plaintiff escape liability.

The reaction from readers is unevenly split: It seems most of you think this is the latest example of our overly litigious commonwealth. Some are even scared that they can’t do enough to protect themselves from a lawsuit.

Other readers are thrilled that property owners are out of excuses for impassable sidewalks. I know this post is long, but I promise I picked only the most interesting comments.

In this corner…

Thank you, SJC. While we may be sweltering now, winter is not far away. Property owners — commercial and residential — need to step up and take care of their property –Eric

while it is upsetting to know that there will be frivolous suits brought over un-cleared sidewalks there is
another way to look at it. In the city trying to get around can be a real problem when a neighbor or business doesn’t do a decent job of clearing their sidewalk. –TMacD

And in this corner…

Americans are trigger happy to sue everyone and everything. I swear they’d sue a black cat if it crossed their path. –Adria

In the Land of Litigation, it now turns out that one must remain at home on days when there is residual snow anywhere near a sidewalk abutting one’s property, as a temperature change could create icy conditions on short notice and leave one open to liability. –Douglas McNeish

[pullquote author=”Giovanna Vitelli”]”I am terrified at the thought that here is yet another potential area for neighborly litigation, right on my doorstep!”[/pullquote]

Now I’m not sure what to do. I normally clear my sidewalks two or three times after a big storm to clear the snow thrown on the sidewalk by the big plows scraping my street. But maybe the best action is to leave it impassible rather than constantly checking for ice formation on a cleared sidewalk. –Peter

I see this as another rise in the cost of good thanks to the legal system. When I step out in the Northeast, I expect ice, snow, slush. I expect wet floors in every entry (homes, businesses and schools alike). Business insurance will go up and businesses will need to pay more to take care of their properties. I do understand that there are extremes in that people or businesses make no attempt to keep their environment safe, but when will people be responsible for their own actions … like walking? –Bill

Having moved recently from the UK,and having just undergone my first winter in Boston, I have been alerted numerous times by helpful neighbors to the need to keep sidewalks clear; but now i am terrified at the thought that here is yet another potential area for neighborly litigation, right on my doorstep! I have discovered what it means to be cautious, even paranoid,about social relations, but my winters are going to take on a whole new dimension now. –Giovanna Vitelli

Some readers pose intriguing questions:

Already stores and businesses overuse snow melting materials. What happens to the environment? –Vicky

My editor last night raised a question similar to Vicky’s. Will this mean a boomlet for the salt and snowmelt shops? I don’t think so. I don’t think this makes people more likely to take extra precautions so much as it makes them more liable if something bad happens. No matter how good a job you do shoveling and scraping, someone will slip and get hurt.  As George Hand smartly points out in his comment:

This decision puts increased emphasis on what happens AFTER the initial removal.

I love our commenters. Add your voice.