Bernier v. Smitty's Sports Pub, Inc.
90 Mass. App. Ct. 472
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On March 11, 2010, 74‑year‑old Ronald J. Leger (decedent) entered Smitty's Sports Pub and, intending to use the men’s room, mistakenly opened a door labeled "Employees Only."
- The three adjacent doors ("Gentlemen," "Ladies," "Employees Only") were similar in appearance and close together; hallway distractions (e.g., a Keno machine, signs) were present.
- The "Employees Only" door opened inward onto an unlit concrete stairwell with a more than 2½‑foot drop; the door was usually kept locked during business hours but was unlocked at the time.
- The decedent fell down the stairs and died of his injuries two weeks later; plaintiffs sued for wrongful death alleging negligent maintenance.
- The jury found Smitty's negligent and causally responsible, assessed the decedent 20% comparative negligence, and found no gross negligence; the trial judge refused defendant’s motion for directed verdict and JNOV that the decedent was a trespasser as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the decedent a trespasser as a matter of law? | Leger was a lawful patron who mistakenly used the wrong door; thus not a trespasser. | Door labeled "Employees Only" made any entry beyond it unlawful; decedent became a trespasser when he opened it. | Court held as a matter of law the decedent was not a trespasser. |
| What duty of care was owed? | Smitty's owed lawful entrants a duty of reasonable care in all circumstances. | If decedent were a trespasser, only duty to avoid willful/wanton/reckless conduct would apply. | Court held duty of reasonable care applied because decedent was lawfully on premises. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of breach/causation? | Similar doors, unlocked inward door to an unlit hazardous stair, and usual practice of keeping it locked made harm foreseeable and supported negligence. | Defendant argued no tort liability if decedent was trespasser; otherwise contested causation/breach. | Sufficient evidence supported jury finding that defendant breached duty and that breach caused injury. |
| Was the issue of status for the jury? | Plaintiffs: status was a question of law for the court where facts undisputed. | Defendant: status should be resolved by jury as a factual question. | Court held status is a question of law when facts undisputed, and properly ruled decedent not a trespasser. |
Key Cases Cited
- Altman v. Aronson, 231 Mass. 588 (1919) (negligence requires proof of a legal duty of care)
- Mounsey v. Ellard, 363 Mass. 693 (1973) (landowner owes reasonable‑care duty to all lawful entrants; abolished invitee/licensee distinction)
- Kushner v. Dravo Corp., 339 Mass. 273 (1959) (foreseeability relevant to reasonableness of risk)
- Foley v. Boston Hous. Authy., 407 Mass. 640 (1990) (summary judgment appropriate where risk was not foreseeable)
- Slaven v. Salem, 386 Mass. 885 (1982) (negligence must be tied to legal duty)
- Atlas v. Silsbury‑Gamble Motors Co., 278 Mass. 279 (1932) (negligence requires duty plus breach)
- Foster v. Loft, Inc., 26 Mass. App. Ct. 289 (1988) (plaintiff must prove defendant breached duty and caused injury)
- Schofield v. Merrill, 386 Mass. 244 (1982) (discussed in opinion regarding status questions though not adopting the specific proposition at issue)