Molinaro v. Town of Northbridge
| Decision Date | 06 January 1995 |
| Citation | 419 Mass. 278,643 N.E.2d 1043 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Steven MOLINARO 1 & others 2 v. TOWN OF NORTHBRIDGE. |
Shelli C. Hamer, Whitinsville, for plaintiffs.
William Hewig, III, Boston, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, LYNCH, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.
We transferred to this court the plaintiffs' appeal from a judgment for the defendant town following allowance of the town's motion to dismiss. Steven Molinaro, a minor, was allegedly injured by a defective slide on a playground owned by the town and available for public use without charge. The plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that (1) the town was negligent in various respects causing Steven's injuries and (2) the town was "willful, wanton and reckless" causing Steven's injuries.
The allowance of the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claims was correct. 3 In Anderson v. Springfield, 406 Mass. 632, 634, 549 N.E.2d 1127 (1990), we held that under G.L. c. 21, § 17C (1992 ed.), the city was protected from negligence claims based on injuries sustained while using recreational facilities made available to the public without charge. Section 17C provides immunity for injuries sustained at such a facility "in the absence of wilful, wanton or reckless conduct by [the] owner." See Forbush v. Lynn, 35 Mass.App.Ct. 696, 704, 625 N.E.2d 1370 (1994); Catanzarite v. Springfield, 32 Mass.App.Ct. 967, 968, 592 N.E.2d 752 (1992). There is no statutory exemption for playground injuries to children (cf. Magro v. Vineland, 148 N.J.Super. 34, 38-39, 371 A.2d 815 [App.Div.1977] ), nor does § 17C exclude from its reach public playgrounds or structures in such a playground. We apply § 17C as written and as construed in our Anderson opinion, which we decline to overrule.
The plaintiffs' claims that the town acted wantonly or recklessly should not have been dismissed. Under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, the town is not liable for intentional torts. G.L. c. 258, § 10(c ) (1992 ed.). Wanton conduct and reckless conduct, however, do not involve the intentional infliction of harm. The Appeals Court identified this distinction in Forbush v. Lynn, supra at 699, 625 N.E.2d 1370, an opinion that was released after the motion judge's allowance of the town's motion to dismiss. We agree with the conclusion of the Forbush opinion. Section 10(c ) does not immunize a municipality from claims based on wanton or reckless conduct. Forbush v. Lynn, supra at 699-700, 625 N.E.2d 1370.
The judgment is vacated insofar as it dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, set forth in count four of the amended complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrissey v. New England Deaconess Ass'n—abundant Life Communities Inc.
...the ambit of the Act, we did not state that our rulings should have only prospective application. See, e.g., Molinaro v. Northbridge, 419 Mass. 278, 279, 643 N.E.2d 1043 (1995) (Act does not confer immunity on municipality for claims based on wanton or reckless conduct); Morris v. Massachus......
-
Detoledo v. County of Suffolk, CIV.A.03-CV-10834RGS.
...v. Honeyman, 406 Mass. 43, 46, 546 N.E.2d 139 (1989), or in some cases to wanton and reckless conduct, Molinaro v. Northbridge, 419 Mass. 278, 279, 643 N.E.2d 1043 (1995). The conduct of Sinclair and Thomas, on the other hand, is alleged to have been intentional. For such conduct, Suffolk C......
-
Barrows v. Wareham Fire Dist.
...is covered by § 10( c ). See Connerty v. Metropolitan Dist. Commn., 398 Mass. 140, 149, 495 N.E.2d 840 (1986); Molinaro v. Northbridge, 419 Mass. 278, 279, 643 N.E.2d 1043 (1995). Barrows argues that since his complaint alleges reckless misconduct in the defamation claim, the town is not ex......
-
Adm'r Of The Estate Of Alfonso Santana v. Gondella
...considered negligent, rather than intentional conduct.” Parker, 67 Mass.App.Ct. at 180, 852 N.E.2d 1097; Molinaro v. Town of Northbridge, 419 Mass. 278, 279, 643 N.E.2d 1043 (1995) (same). Section 4 of Chapter 258 bars any suit for damages against a public entity unless the plaintiff within......