Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-30093-MAP (Docket No. 23)
November 28, 2001
Kenneth H. Wilson, Plaintiff; Gerald F. Begley, Jr., Pellegrini and Seeley, P.C., Springfield, MA.
Consolidated Rail Corporation, Defendant; Michael B. Flynn, Flynn Associates, P.C., Boston, MA; Paula D. Eichner, Flynn Associates, PC, Boston, MA.
MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an action seeking damages for negligence. Plaintiff Kenneth Wilson ("Wilson") initially filed suit in the Superior Court for the County of Hampden, Springfield Division, claiming that Consolidated Railroad Corporation's ("Conrail's") negligence in maintaining its railroad yard was the cause of the wrist injury he suffered on February 2, 1998. The case was removed to this court on the motion of defendant, who now moves for summary judgment on the sole count of the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, this court will allow defendant's motion.
II. FACTS
The facts are presented in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wilson was employed as a truck driver for Responsive Trucking, Inc. ("Responsive"). (Docket 31 at 2). Because Conrail and Responsive were parties to the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement, Responsive was permitted to haul trailers in and out of Conrail's intermodal railroad yard located in West Springfield, Massachusetts. (Docket 24 at 1-2 and Exhibit A). The railroad yard was maintained by Zielinski Brothers, an independent contractor hired by Conrail. (Docket No. 31 at 4). Zielinski's responsibilities included snow removal, plowing, salting, sanding, and grading. (Docket No. 31 at 4). On February 2, 1998, Wilson drove to Conrail's Intermodal trailer facility to pick up a trailer that was located in the maintenance lot, an area of unpaved dirt. (Docket 31 at 2-3). There were muddy and either ice-coated or slush-filled ruts on the surface of the lot. At the end of the ruts was a flat surface (or "plateau") of untouched, snow-covered ice that rose two to three inches higher than the ruts, and on top of this plateau sat the trailer that Wilson was instructed to haul. Id at 3.
After Wilson located the trailer, he backed his truck directly adjacent to it. He then stepped down from his truck, hooked up the "glad hands" and the electrics, and proceeded to conduct an inspection of the tractor-trailer combination. (Docket 24 at 2; Exhibit B at 140). When he commenced his inspection, he was unaware of the ice under the snow. (Docket 31 at 3). In fact, he did not become aware of the existence of the ice until he neared the front of the truck. Id. Responding to this realization, Wilson immediately adjusted his pace and grabbed hold of the truck. As he attempted to go around the left fender of the truck, he slipped and fell to the ground, fracturing his right wrist. Id.
The maintenance lot had a single catch basin for drainage. Water run-off in the maintenance lot was channeled towards this basin. (Docket No. 31 at 4). The basin was old, and the surface grate covering the basin was prone to catching debris. (Docket No. 31 at 4, Exhibit 7 at 19). On a few occasions, Richard Benoit, an employee of Zielinski Brothers, had cleared the grate by removing the dirt and stones that would get stuck after plowing and grading operations. (Docket No. 31 at 4, Exhibit 7 at 20). The lot was graded, plowed, and salted on four different occasions between November, 24, 1997 and January 23, 1998. (Docket No. 31, Exhibit 7 at 34-44 and attached invoices). The catch basin was located somewhere in the area of the snow-covered ice plateau where Wilson fell. (Docket No. 31, Exhibit 2 at 200-205, Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7 at 15-18, and Exhibit 8).
In the past, Conrail had observed flooding, due to clogged drain pipes, located below ground, in other areas of its facility but not in the area where Wilson fell. (Docket No. 31 at 5). There was no evidence that the drain pipe in the maintenance lot had ever been clogged so as to cause a back-up of water. (Docket No. 24 at 6). Moreover, there was no evidence that debris on the surface drain grate had ever blocked the basin to the extent that flooding resulted.
III. DISCUSSION
A motion for summary judgment is allowed when the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). When determining whether the motion should be granted, the court must review the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and "must indulge all inferences favorable to that party." Stepanischen v. Merchants Despatch Transport Corp., 722 F.2d 922, 928 (1st Cir. 1983). "Once the moving party has demonstrated that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden of production shifts to the nonmovant to contradict the demonstration by coming `forward with specific, provable facts which establish that there is a triable issue.'" Riverdale Mills Corp. v. American Modern Home Insurance Co., 122 F. Supp.2d 114, 116-17 (D.Mass. 2000), citing Matos v. Davila, 135 F.3d 182, 185 (1st Cir. 1998). An issue is "genuine" if the fact finder could resolve it in the non-moving party's favor. See Magee v. United States, 121 F.3d 1,3 (1st Cir. 1997). But not all genuine, factual conflicts require a trial. See Riverdale Mills Corp., 122 F. Supp.2d at 116. "It is only when a disputed fact has the potential to change the outcome of the suit under the governing law if found favorably to the nonmovant that the materiality hurdle is cleared." Parilla-Burgos v. Hernandez-Rivera, 108 F.3d 445, 448 (1st Cir. 1997).
The court must apply this Rule 56 standard to the specific framework of this "slip and fall" case. In this light, the central issue before the court becomes whether plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the snow-covered ice on which the plaintiff fell constituted an "unnatural" accumulation of snow and ice. A property owner's duty to a person who is lawfully on his premises is one of "reasonable care under the circumstances." Sullivan v. Town of Brookline, 416 Mass. 825, 827 (1994), citing Mounsey v. Ellard, 363 Mass. 693, 707-708 (1973). However, "this duty is not violated by a failure to remove a natural accumulation of snow or ice." Id.; see also Aylward v. McCloskey, 412 Mass. 77, 80 (1992). In Massachusetts, owners can only be liable for those injuries that are the result of "defects" on their property. A natural accumulation of snow and ice is not a "defect" under Massachusetts law. See Aylward, 412 Mass. at 79. Nonetheless, "in circumstances where some act or [omission] has changed the condition of naturally accumulated snow and ice, and the elements alone or in connection with the land become a hazard to lawful visitors, then a defect may exist, creating liability in the owner or occupier." Aylward, 412 Mass. at 81 n. 3.
Conrail argues that it is undisputed that the accumulation of ice and snow in the area where plaintiff fell was natural and unaltered, and that it is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In his deposition, plaintiff in fact did characterize the site of the fall as "untouched." (Docket No. 24, Exhibit B at 140). Furthermore, he stated that the only footprints and tire tracks on the snow were his own, that there were no tire ruts in the area where he fell (i.e. on the unrutted "plateau"), and that the condition was "natural." (Docket No. 24, Exhibit B at 122-23, 140-42, 216). In his brief and at oral argument, plaintiff does not dispute that the condition was originally natural. Instead, plaintiff argues that a jury could find that the defendant's acts or omissions, particularly defendant's maintenance of the drain, changed the condition of the injury site from natural to unnatural. (Docket 31 at 5-9).
To begin the analysis, it is important to focus on the undisputed area of the fall, the untouched, snow-covered plateau. Frozen ruts caused by traffic or negligent plowing can constitute an "unnatural" condition, but it is clear that plaintiff did not take his fall in such an area.
Given this undisputed fact, plaintiff can avoid summary judgment only by pointing to facts of record that would justify a jury's concluding that: (a) defendant negligently failed to maintain the drain; (b) as a result of that negligence water backed up; and (c) the water froze into an unnatural formation of ice that plaintiff fell on.
In some instances, a natural accumulation can be altered by constructing a structure that "[collects] water into a definite channel by a spout or otherwise and [pours] it upon a public way" where the water freezes through natural causes. Pritchard v. Mabrey, 358 Mass. 137, 140 (1970), citing Field v. Gowdy, 199 Mass. 568, 570 (1908); see also Bullard v. Mattoon, 297 Mass. 182, 186 (1937). In Pritchard and Bullard, the Supreme Judicial Court found that owners of buildings that abutted a public sidewalk were liable for injuries to pedestrians who slipped on ice that formed on the sidewalks as a result of the defendants' constructing their buildings in such a way that water fell from the windows onto the sidewalks and froze. See Pritchard, 358 Mass. at 140; see also Bullard, 297 Mass. at 186. It should be noted that Pritchard and Bullard involved situations where water was directly channeled on to a public sidewalk. It is not clear whether these holdings apply to accumulations on private property. As the Supreme Judicial Court noted in Field, "a landowner has a right to change the surface of his lot, or improve it by the construction of buildings or by other means, in any lawful manner, and if the natural course of surface water is thereby altered no liability is imposed on him." Field v. Gowdy, 199 Mass. 568, 570 (1908).
Assuming that flooding from a negligently maintained drain resulting in an unnatural accumulation of ice on private property could provide a basis for liability, plaintiff's case suffers from three defects: first, the facts regarding the location of the drain are unclear; second, no evidence suggests that the drain in question ever backed up enough to cause a flood at any time; and third, no evidence suggests that any flooding caused the formation of the icy area at the actual time and place where plaintiff fell.
Plaintiff argues that he slipped in the immediate area of the catch basin. In support, he offers the exhibits referred to in his own deposition and that of Richard Benoit, the maintenance worker. (Docket No. 31 at Exhibit 2 at 200-05; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 7 at 16-17; Exhibit 8). In the first exhibit, a picture of the maintenance lot, plaintiff drew a circle in the area where the ice was located. In the second exhibit, a different photograph, Benoit drew a circle at the location of the catch basin. (Docket No. 31, Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 8). By superimposing the photographs on top of each other, plaintiff argues, a jury could draw the inference that the ice on which plaintiff fell was somewhere near the location of the catch basin. A careful examination of the two photos makes this suggestion doubtful, but perhaps possible. It is unnecessary, at any rate, to rest the decision regarding summary judgment on the existence of evidence supporting the location of the drain, since not a scintilla of evidence supports the two other essential components of plaintiff's claim.
It should be noted that Benoit's testimony in most respects contradicts plaintiff's; at one point, he testifies that "[the] area, where the basin is, is always open" and that the defendants "don't park anything on [it]." (Docket No. 31 at 26).
First, there is no evidence that the specific basin in question has ever backed up or clogged so as to cause flooding and/or puddling, which would result in the formation of ice. Moreover, there is no evidence that the basin in question backed up or clogged on the day of the fall. In fact, most of the evidence with regard to the catch basin is contrary to the plaintiff's position that it clogged on the day of his injury, suggesting instead that the basin's pipe has never been clogged or blocked. (Docket No. 25, Exhibit E at 97, Exhibit F at 41; see also Docket No. 31, Exhibit 7 at 24-26). The only evidence proffered by plaintiff with regard to the drain in question is the testimony of Benoit in which he states that he has unplugged and cleaned the grate of the catch basin in the past, and that the catch basin will not drain properly if it rains or if the lot is rutted and snow is melting. (Docket No. 31, Exhibit 7 at 20, 30, 55). At no point does Benoit even suggest, however, that the problem of debris on the grate ever caused flooding either on the day of the fall or at any other time. Plaintiff does offer evidence of clogging and flooding in another lot, caused by a plugged, below-ground pipe in a different drain. This evidence has no bearing on the condition of the drain and lot in question. (Docket No. 31, Exhibit 4 at 88-89).
Assembling bits and pieces of evidence from the record, plaintiff attempts to argue that a jury might infer that a blocked basin caused a back-up of water which, when frozen, became the sheet of ice on which the plaintiff fell. This patchwork of evidence includes: the location of the drain, the rutted condition of the area nearby, the raised condition of the plateau, Benoit's testimony regarding occasional debris on the grate, and other testimony regarding flooding caused by a clogged drain pipe in another lot. However, this evidence is much too attenuated to permit any reasonable jury to draw inferences supporting either a failure to use reasonable care or causation. Given the evidence in the record, a conclusion that the catch basin was defective and that its condition led to the creation of the plateau of ice would amount to mere speculation and "[m]ere speculation that the ice in question accumulated unnaturally is insufficient to establish that the defendant acted or failed to act in a way that constitutes negligence." Emmanuel v. The Children's Hospital Corporation, 2001 WL 498601 at *2 (Mass.App.Div. May 4, 2001). In sum, plaintiff has failed to show that there is a genuine, triable issue as to whether the catch basin was negligently maintained so as to cause flooding that resulted in the formation of the ice on which plaintiff fell. No evidence suggests that the area of snow-covered ice constituted anything other than a "natural" accumulation. Defendant is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the sole count of the complaint is hereby ALLOWED.
A separate order will issue.