A Duty of Reasonable Care on the Property - Personal Injury Legal Blogs Posted by Robert I. Feinberg - Lawyers.com

A Duty of Reasonable Care on the Property

If you think of major cases in tort law, which includes personal injury law, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the 1970s provided a wealth of evolving law. Their decisions were as epic in this field as the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the 1960s when that court issued a whole host of rulings concerning criminal and constitutional law. Because this blog deals with the handling of personal injury cases, I will focus on the SJC in the 1970s. Recent blogs have concerned changes in the common law of torts brought by judicial decision. One of the biggest decisions was the case of Mounsey v. Ellard, 363 Mass. 693 (1973) where business invitees were eliminated as a separate category and a duty of reasonable care was imposed upon all those lawfully on the premises. With respect to trespassers, that distinction remained as land owners continued to owe them a duty only to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless disregard. Prior to Mounsey, the focus would be on the status of the person on the land i.e. whether they were an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.  In Mounsey, the Supreme Judicial Court abrogated the distinction between invitee and licensee and no longer expected a focus on the status of the person who was injured. I am not sure this abrogation was a pro-plaintiff decision, although it is generally thought to have been, but it certainly narrowed the legal issues.

Mounsey continues to be the leading case in this field (having recently been cited in the snow-and-ice Papadopoulos v. Target decision) almost four decades after it was decided.

Feinberg & Alban PC 141 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02111

Boston lawyer Robert I. Feinberg discusses the case of Mounsey v. Ellard, where business invitees were eliminated as a separate category and a duty of reasonable care was imposed upon all those lawfully on the premises.

View Attorney Profile

Robert I. Feinberg

Licensed since 1982

Member at firm Feinberg & Alban, P.C.

AWARDS

AV Preeminent

RECENT POSTS

  • Statements of Intent
    Posted on December 5, 2012

    In Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, the Supreme Court rendered a famous and controversial judgement concerning the admissibility of a person’s out-of-court statement. Rule 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the famous Hillmon case, but it restricts its applicability. In Hillmon, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed evidence of person A’s statement ... Read more

  • Jury Impanelment (Cont.)
    Posted on November 28, 2012
    Topic: Litigation

    Most trial attorneys and judges will tell you that you can never predict the way that jurors will interpret a case.  Further, because the secrecy of jury deliberations is so closely guarded, none of us can really know what specifically influenced the jurors.  The judges talk to the jurors after the verdict in the jury ... Read more

  • Civil Litigators… In the Beginning
    Posted on November 20, 2012

    Having employed law students and new lawyers for almost thirty years, I find their perceptions worth sharing for what it says about the practice of law as opposed to their expectations. At the outset, let me point out that these are talented and earnest people.  In general, civil litigation is not what they expected after ... Read more

Robert I. Feinberg

Licensed since 1982

Member at firm Feinberg & Alban, P.C.

AWARDS

AV Preeminent

RECENT POSTS

  • Statements of Intent
    Posted on December 5, 2012

    In Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, the Supreme Court rendered a famous and controversial judgement concerning the admissibility of a person’s out-of-court statement. Rule 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the famous Hillmon case, but it restricts its applicability. In Hillmon, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed evidence of person A’s statement ... Read more

  • Jury Impanelment (Cont.)
    Posted on November 28, 2012
    Topic: Litigation

    Most trial attorneys and judges will tell you that you can never predict the way that jurors will interpret a case.  Further, because the secrecy of jury deliberations is so closely guarded, none of us can really know what specifically influenced the jurors.  The judges talk to the jurors after the verdict in the jury ... Read more

  • Civil Litigators… In the Beginning
    Posted on November 20, 2012

    Having employed law students and new lawyers for almost thirty years, I find their perceptions worth sharing for what it says about the practice of law as opposed to their expectations. At the outset, let me point out that these are talented and earnest people.  In general, civil litigation is not what they expected after ... Read more