Anderson v. City of Springfield

• Decision Date: 12 February 1990
• Citation: 406 Mass. 632,549 N.E.2d 1127
• Parties: William ANDERSON et al. 1 v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 1127

549 N.E.2d 1127

406 Mass. 632

William ANDERSON et al. ¹ v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,

Hampden.

Argued Oct. 5, 1989.

Decided Feb. 12, 1990.

Mary Anne Stamm, Springfield, for plaintiffs.

Patricia T. Martinelli, Asst. City Sol., for defendant.

Peter Antell and Robert A. Cohen, Asst. Corp. Counsels, for City of Boston, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Present LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, NOLAN, LYNCH and GREANEY, JJ.

LYNCH, Justice.

The plaintiffs appeal from the entry of summary judgment in the Superior Court in favor of the defendant. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion, and affirm.

The plaintiffs' action alleged that William Anderson was injured as a result of a defect in home plate on a softball diamond in a public park, and that the defendant's negligence caused the defect. The other plaintiffs claim loss of consortium and mental anguish derived from the injuries sustained by William Anderson.

The city relies on the Commonwealth's recreational use statute, G.L. c. 21, § 17C (1988 ed.), as an affirmative defense. General Laws c. 21, § 17C, provides:

"An owner of land who permits the public to use such land for recreational purposes without imposing a charge or fee therefor, or who leases his land for said purposes to the commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof shall not be liable to any member of the public who uses said land for the aforesaid purposes for injuries to person or property sustained by him while on said land in the absence of wilful, wanton or reckless conduct by such owner, nor shall such permission be deemed to confer upon any person so using said land the status of an invitee or licensee to whom any duty would be owed by said owner. The liability of an owner who imposes a charge or fee for the use of his land by the public for recreational purposes shall not be limited by any provision of this section."

The motion judge noted that it was undisputed that the city was the owner of the field where the injury occurred, and that it permitted the public to use the field for recreational purposes without charging a fee. He ruled, therefore, that G.L. c. 21, § 17C, applied, and since no wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct was alleged, he granted the city's motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the Legislature did not intend to include the Commonwealth or any of its subdivisions within the meaning of the term "owner[s] of land" in G.L. c. 21, § 17C. In support of this contention, the plaintiffs point to the fact that G.L. c. 21, § 17C, was passed prior to the enactment of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L. c. 258, and that Massachusetts governmental entities were therefore already largely immune from civil liability at the time when the statute was passed.

General Laws c. 21, § 17C, has not been interpreted in any previous decision of this court or the Appeals Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the First...