Wilkins v. City of Haverhill
8 N.E.3d 753
Mass.2014Background
- Michelle Wilkins slipped on ice on a city-owned school walkway while attending a scheduled parent‑teacher conference in the evening of February 10, 2011, and sued the city for negligence.
- The city moved for summary judgment invoking G. L. c. 21, § 17C (the public/recreational use statute), which bars ordinary negligence claims when landowners lawfully permit the public to use land for enumerated purposes without a fee.
- The city conceded the school was closed to the general public at the time and access was limited to parents of enrolled students, but argued that permitting parents to attend conferences qualified as permitting “the public” to use the land for an educational purpose.
- The Superior Court granted the city’s summary judgment motion; Wilkins appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court allowed direct appellate review.
- The SJC considered statutory interpretation of “the public” in § 17C and whether a delimited subset (parents of students) satisfies the statute’s threshold requirement of public access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G. L. c. 21, § 17C immunity applies when land is opened only to a subset of the community | Wilkins: § 17C does not apply because the school was not open to the general public; she was a lawful visitor owed ordinary care | City: permitting parents (a community subgroup) to attend parent‑teacher conferences qualifies as permitting “the public” for an educational purpose | The statute requires access by the general public; opening to a discrete subgroup (parents) does not trigger immunity |
| Whether attending a parent‑teacher conference is an educational purpose under § 17C for the parent | Wilkins: parent’s attendance at conference is not the kind of public educational use § 17C contemplates | City: attending engages the parent in an educational purpose and benefits child and parent, fitting § 17C’s educational purpose | Parent’s participation in a conference does not constitute an educational use open to the general public for § 17C purposes |
| Whether special permission/status negates § 17C coverage | Wilkins: her presence was by specific invitation/authorization, not as a member of the general public | City: characterized parents as members of the public for § 17C | The statute does not apply when visitor has special permission or is a discrete subgroup rather than a member of the general public |
| Whether statutory purpose supports extending immunity to schools holding private events | Wilkins: Legislature intended to encourage broad public access, not routine school functions like parent conferences | City: immunity should apply to educational uses generally | Applying § 17C to parent‑teacher conferences would conflict with legislative purpose and other statutory duties to involve parents; immunity was not intended for such discrete, nonpublic events |
Key Cases Cited
- HipSaver, Inc. v. Kiel, 464 Mass. 517 (standard for summary judgment)
- Johnson v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 466 Mass. 779 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Ali v. Boston, 441 Mass. 233 (public use statute construed to encourage broad public access; distinction between general public and discrete subgroups)
- Seich v. Canton, 426 Mass. 84 (statute applied where general public could attend school event)
- Whooley v. Commonwealth, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 909 (statute applied where plaintiff was like any other member of the public)
- Dos Santos v. Coleta, 465 Mass. 148 (common‑law duty owed to lawful visitors)
- Marcus v. Newton, 462 Mass. 148 (§ 17C immunity limited to members of the public using land for permitted purposes)
- Dunn v. Boston, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 556 (statute inapplicable where injured party had special permission/status)