Cracchiolo v. Eastern Fisheries, Inc., 740 F.3d 64

Cracchiolo died after slipping from a hazardous pier area while returning to the Sunlight at a New Bedford fishery facility; his wife sued for wrongful death against Eastern Fisheries, RCP Realty, and O'Hara Corp. for Jones Act and state-law negligence claims.
Eastern Fisheries operated the dock/pier; RCP Realty owned the property; O'Hara Corp. owned the boat; the premise-liability claims focus on snow/ice on the pier and inadequate egress to the boat.
The district court granted summary judgment to Eastern Fisheries and RCP, finding no duty of care under the undisputed facts; the court did not decide the overall duty issue.
On appeal, the First Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding the duty issue could not be decided on the undisputed facts in the summary-judgment record.
Material facts include (a) a gap in the fence at the southeast corner allowing unauthorized entry, (b) multiple routes to reach the boat with varying hazards, (c) ice/snow conditions on the pier and takeout platform, and (d) evidence of crew members’ prior use of the gap and alternating routes.
Lazaro and Cracchiolo used the southeast gap to re-enter; Cracchiolo, after learning the gate was locked, attempted the hazardous retaining-wall route and fell into the water; alcohol in Cracchiolo’s system was detected posthumously.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether landowners owed a duty to remedy snow/ice on the pier under foreseeability	Cracchiolo's estate argues duty exists to remedy known/open hazards when foreseeability supports harm.	Owners contend no duty where hazards are open/obvious or not foreseeably dangerous in this setting.	Not decided at summary judgment; remanded for factfinding.
Whether prior uses of the southeast gap created foreseeability of risky entry	Past uses show foreseeability that crew would use the gap to access the boat despite hazards.	Limited prior uses do not establish foreseeability as a matter of law.	Not resolved; disputes of fact remain; remand.
Whether knowledge or notice of the gap and its use was sufficient to impose a duty	Owners should have anticipated the gap would be used and ensured safety.	Insufficient evidence of notice to defeat summary judgment.	Not decided; remand for development of record.
Is this case suitable for summary judgment given conflicting inferences about foreseeability and risk	Record supports duty to remedy due to foreseeable risky route.	Record lacks clear foreseeability to comply with duty as a matter of law.	Not suitable for summary judgment; remand for further proceedings.

Dos Santos v. Coleta, 987 N.E.2d 1187 (Mass. 2013) (duty to remedy open/obvious hazards when danger can be anticipated)
Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 930 N.E.2d 142 (Mass. 2010) (duty to remedy/open-disclosed hazards; warning vs remedy)
Soederberg v. Concord Greene Condominium Ass'n, 921 N.E.2d 1020 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (open/obvious hazards may still require remedy where harm is foreseeable)
Quinn v. Morganelli, 895 N.E.2d 507 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008) (jury questions on foreseeability and duty; summary judgment reversed for further proceedings)
Jupin v. Kask, 849 N.E.2d 829 (Mass. 2006) (foreseeability as central to duty; public policy considerations)