Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Premises Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews landlord liability after tenant fell when landing removed and motion light delayed
Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard arguments Feb. 11, 2025 in Varley v. Walther, focussing on whether a landlord’s removal of a platform and reliance on a delayed motion-sensor light created a legally actionable dangerous condition after a tenant fell.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court on Feb. 11, 2025 heard argument in Varley v. Walther, a premises-liability appeal stemming from a tenant’s fall after a previously installed platform (landing) was removed and an exterior motion-sensor light did not illuminate immediately at night.
The tenant (appellant) argued the defendant landlord removed a platform without notice and failed to provide adequate egress lighting, causing the fall. Counsel described testimony that the tenant had used a flush platform for years, and that on the night of the fall the motion-sensor light had a several-second delay that did not illuminate until after the tenant had already stepped down. The tenant argued that the combination of a changed egress configuration and inadequate lighting made the condition dangerous and that the landlord had a duty to warn or to remedy.
Counsel for the landlord countered that the exposed step was not inherently defective: it had a standard step height and the tenant had exited the same doorway for decades, including years without any platform. Defense counsel cited precedent holding that occupants and visitors who observe and accept an open and obvious condition are not entitled to repeated warnings and that seeing a condition during daylight removes any obligation to give further notice.
The court focused on causation questions (whether lighting delay could have caused the fall), notice (tenant’s awareness that the platform was removed when she returned earlier that day), and foreseeability. Justices asked about the timing of the tenant’s daylight return, whether the tenant’s son removed the platform, and whether a guest unfamiliar with the property would have a different claim.
Both sides pointed to case law about open-and-obvious conditions and lighting failures. The panel took the matter under submission after argument.
If the court sides with the tenant, the decision could emphasize a landlord’s obligation to anticipate harm when altering an entryway used routinely by residents and to provide adequate egress lighting; an affirmance for the landlord would reinforce the open-and-obvious doctrine and the relevance of tenant familiarity.
