When Injuries Occur, Open and Obvious Dangers on Construction Sites Do Not Always Negate Liability

Generally, an owner or the person in control of property owes a duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, but this duty is subject to the “open and obvious danger rule.” O’Sullivan v. Shaw 431 Mass. 201 (2000) According to O’Sullivan, a landowner is not liable for an injury from an open and obvious danger to a person of average intelligence. Construction sites are inherently dangerous places, and duties with respect to such a danger is can be negated because they are open and obvious. But, when the person controlling the property should anticipate that an open and obvious danger would cause an injury, the danger must be remedied. Even basic hazards such as construction debris that make a worksite unsafe should be remedied. When an employees’ advantage of encountering an open and obvious danger outweighs the apparent risk, a duty to remedy will arise. Papadopoulos v.
Read More

Municipal Board Members’ Ethical Breaches Must be Adjudicated with the State Ethics Commission

In Nantasket Beachfront Condominiums, LLC vs. Hull Redevelopment Authority, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the allegation of municipal board members’ individual ethical breaches must be adjudicated with the State Ethics Commission. A Land Disposition Agreement (the “LDA”) for the purchase of land and the development of seventy-two housing units was executed between the Hull Redevelopment Authority (the “redevelopment authority”) and Nantasket Beachfront Condominium, LLC (the “developer”). Neighborhood opposition led to delays and appeals of the developer’s zoning permit. The redevelopment authority alleged that the developer defaulted, and the redevelopment authority retained liquidated damages. The developer’s subsequent action in the Superior Court was dismissed on summary judgment in the redevelopment authority’s favor; the developer appealed. The developer alleged that the redevelopment authority’s decision to terminate the LDA was tainted because two of the redevelopment authority board members had serious conflicts of interest. After the Hull Zoning Board of Appeal issued
Read More