 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greenwood v. Town of Easton6/10/2005
Bristol.
April 5, 2005
Present: Marshall, C.J., Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Sosman, & Cordy, JJ.
Governmental Immunity. Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. Negligence, Municipality. Municipal Corporations, Liability for tort, Governmental immunity.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 9, 2000.
The case was heard by Richard T. Moses, J., on a motion for summary judgment.
After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.
On the afternoon of May 7, 1999, Denise Greenwood (Greenwood) was standing in a grassy area that was adjacent to the parking lot of Oliver Ames High School (high school) and owned by the town of Easton (town). She was seriously injured when an exiting vehicle struck a horizontal telephone pole that was being used as a parking barrier, and the force of the collision caused the pole to move forward several feet, knocking Greenwood to the ground and rolling over her leg and upper body. Telephone poles had been placed on, but not secured into, the ground to separate the parking lot from the surrounding high school property.
The plaintiff, Jane Greenwood, brought a negligence action against the town and Gregory Woodward, the driver of the vehicle, for the personal injuries sustained by her daughter. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the town had acted negligently by (1) placing barriers on the ground and failing to secure them to prevent them from moving; (2) failing to maintain the parking area and the property around the high school in a safe manner; and (3) failing to warn of a defect on the property. The town filed a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974), asserting that it was immune from liability pursuant to various provisions of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (Act), G. L. c. 258, § 10. A judge in the Superior Court denied the town's motion, concluding that the town was not entitled to immunity under the tort claims act, and that a jury could find that the use of unsecured telephone poles as barriers in the parking lot created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of injury to persons in Greenwood's position. The Appeals Court reversed in an unpublished memorandum and order issued pursuant to its rule 1:28. See Greenwood v. Easton, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 1101 (2004). We granted the plaintiff's application for further appellate review to decide whether the town was entitled to immunity from liability under G. L. c. 258, § 10 (a), (b), and (j). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the order of the Superior Court judge denying the town's motion for summary judgment.
1. G. L. c. 258, § 10 (b)
General Laws c. 258, § 2, provides: "Public employers shall be liable for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any public employee while acting within the scope of his office or employment, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, except that public employers shall not be liable . . . for any amount in excess of one hundred thousand dollars." The tort claims act exempts from liability "any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a public employer or public employee, acting within the scope of his office or employment, whether or not the discretion involved is abused." G. L. c. 258, § 10 (b). Here, the town contends that it is immune from the plaintiff's negligence claim under this discretionary function exception to governmen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Massachusetts Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|