Halbach v. Normandy Real Estate Partners
90 Mass. App. Ct. 669
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- On June 4, 2009 Eric Halbach tripped on uneven pavement and was seriously injured on a public sidewalk adjacent to a commercial garage; the sidewalk was owned by the City of Boston.
- The adjacent commercial property was owned by 100 & 200 Clarendon Street, LLC and managed/maintained by Normandy; Normandy later paid $798 to grind down the uneven pavement after the fall.
- Plaintiffs (Eric and Kathleen Halbach) sued, alleging defendants had a duty to repair or warn about the hazard on the abutting public sidewalk.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no duty existed; plaintiffs conceded the facts were undisputed and framed the dispute as a question of law.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding abutting landowners owe only a negative duty not to create hazards on public ways and do not have an affirmative duty to repair or warn absent creation or contribution to the defect.
- The Appeals Court affirmed, concluding (1) plaintiffs presented no evidence defendants created or contributed to the sidewalk defect and (2) no legal right-to-control existed in the record that would impose an affirmative duty given the municipal statutory scheme for public-way maintenance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abutting commercial landowners owe an affirmative duty to inspect, repair, or warn about defects on a publicly owned sidewalk | Halbach: abutters who exercise control over adjacent sidewalks (here evidenced by post-accident repair) have a duty to repair or warn | Defendants: mere ownership of abutting property does not create an affirmative duty; city owns and is statutorily responsible for sidewalks | Held: No affirmative duty; abutters owe only the negative duty not to create hazards and, absent evidence they caused or had a legal right to control the sidewalk, are not liable |
| Whether post-accident repairs establish control sufficient to create duty | Halbach: Normandy’s remedial grinding shows actual control and supports inferring a duty | Normandy: post-accident remedial action alone is insufficient to prove a preexisting legal right to control or duty | Held: Post-accident repairs do not establish the legal right to control here; record lacked evidence of a right to control and city has statutory maintenance responsibility |
| Whether industry standards or expert testimony established a duty or scope of duty on abutters | Halbach: industry norms and expert testimony show commercial managers accept responsibility to maintain adjacent sidewalks | Normandy: industry standards do not create a common-law duty where none exists; expert testimony irrelevant if no duty exists | Held: Expert evidence about standards irrelevant because no legal duty was found to exist |
| Whether Massachusetts common law or out-of-state authority requires a different result | Halbach: Cites out-of-state cases imposing affirmative duties on commercial abutters | Defendants: Massachusetts precedent does not impose such duties; out-of-state cases are not controlling | Held: Massachusetts common-law rule retained — no affirmative duty absent creation, contribution, or demonstrated legal control |
Key Cases Cited
- Juliano v. Simpson, 461 Mass. 527 (de novo review of summary judgment standard)
- Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117 (summary judgment standard)
- Lev v. Beverly Enterprises–Mass., Inc., 457 Mass. 234 (burden on moving party to show no triable issue)
- Madsen v. Erwin, 395 Mass. 715 (conclusory allegations insufficient to avoid summary judgment)
- Pritchard v. Mabrey, 358 Mass. 137 (abutter’s duty limited to refraining from creating hazards on public ways)
- Farolato v. Springfield Five Cents Sav. Bank, 310 Mass. 806 (no duty to repair sidewalk absent causation by abutter)
- Davis v. Westwood Group, 420 Mass. 739 (duty may arise from right to control land even without ownership)
- Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 457 Mass. 368 (distinguishable; involved private parking lot and snow/ice rule change)
- Martel v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 403 Mass. 1 (post-accident repairs inadmissible to prove negligence but may bear on control)