In this slip and fall case, plaintiff attempts to expand the principles of sidewalk liability for commercial properties to a residential property that was unoccupied and undergoing renovations. This court upholds the motion judge's rejection of plaintiff's invitation to adopt such expanded principles of liability.
As an alternative argument, plaintiff contends the common law protection for residential property owners was nullified here because the defendant homeowners allegedly increased the sidewalk's slippery condition by negligently clearing snow from it. The court rejects this contention as well.
Even viewing the record in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the motion judge properly deemed the evidence insufficient to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the homeowners had worsened the sidewalk's actual condition before her slip and fall. The undisputed record establishes that the photographs plaintiff crucially relies upon to prove the sidewalk's supposedly worsened condition at the time of her fall were taken much later, after an intervening winter snowstorm—according to plaintiff's weather expert—had deposited as much as another 3.5 inches of snow in the area. The weather data thus undermined plaintiff's contentions about the nature of the sidewalk's condition at the time of the accident, rendering her theory of liability untenable.
The court therefore affirms summary judgment and the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.