A defective road is one of the ways in which a road owner could be liable.
State and city owned roads should be maintained to be “reasonably safe and convenient for travelers” (M.G.L. 84, § 1). For a owner of such a road to be liable, the road must be defective. A defect is “anything that renders the way inconvenient or unsafe for ordinary travel”.
A defect does not have to affect the road surface itself. It could be an obstruction overhanging the way, or a structure that may fall on or in the way (Whalen v. Worcester, 307 Mass. 169, 1940). However, a hole outside the limits of the road cannot be a road defect (Longley v. Worcester, 304 Mass. 580, 1939; Abihider v. Springfield, 277 Mass. 125, 1931).
Although a road needs to be reasonably safe and convenient for travelers, it does not need to be kept in perfect condition (Zacharer v. Wakefield, 291 Mass. 90, 1935).
If you are aware of the dangers of a particular road, the owner does not need to provide warning (O’Neil v. Boston, 263 Mass. 55, 1928). However, when a road is defective, knowledge of the danger does not make you negligent if you get injured (Barton v. Boston, 301 Mass. 492, 1938).
When a road is repaired or modified following an accident, that in itself is not proof that the road was defective (Manchester v. Attleboro, 288 Mass. 492, 1934).
Whether accidents happened previously at the same location is irrelevant, both for showing that a road is defective (Nat’l Laundry Co. v. Newton, 300 Mass. 126, 1938, Marvin v. New Bedford 158 Mass. 464, 1893), or for showing it is not defective (Williams v. Winthrop, 213 Mass. 581, 1913).
A condition that might constitute a defect in a thickly settled district might not amount to a defect in a remote part of a city where the traffic was lighter (Hawkes v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 328 Mass. 140, 1951).
Examples of road defects are:
- A traffic sign obstructed by overgrowing foliage (Twomey v. Commonwealth, 444 Mass. 58, 2005).
- An sidewalk that is uneven because one part is substantially higher than an adjacent part (King v. Boston, 300 Mass. 377, 1938).
- A cement block of a smooth, level sidewalk which abruptly projects 1½ inch over the adjoining block (Sears v. Greenfield, 287 Mass. 445, 1934).
- A granite slab that sticks out a little more than 1½ inch above the adjacent bricks of a sidewalk (George v. Malden, 274 Mass. 606, 1931).
- A road with a drain so large that the trunk of a person fits through (Buskey v. Worcester, 323 Mass. 342, 1948). If only a foot fits through, the road is not defective (Spillane v. Fitchburg, 177 Mass. 87, 1900).
- A 3½ x 3 inch hole in a public sidewalk that is half an inch deep (Trites v. Melrose, 318 Mass. 378, 1945).
- An unattended, unguarded, open manhole in the sidewalk, even if is temporary, barrels block the entrance of the street to cars, and a truck with city workers is parked next to the manhole (Minasian v. Somerville, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 25, 1996).
- Logs and building materials piled on the road, leaving a way of 16′ wide (Snow v. Adams, 55 Mass. 443, 1848).
- A wire laying on the road that came loose from a utility pole on the road (Hayes v. Hyde Park, 153 Mass. 514, 1891).
- A post on the road near the line of travel (Coggswell v. Lexington, 58 Mass. 307, 1849).
- The fall of an awning projected over a sidewalk (Drake v. Lowell, 54 Mass. 292, 1847).
- The fall of a decayed and dangerous tree that stood within the lines of the road (Miles v. Commonwealth, 288 Mass. 243, 1934).
The following conditions have been ruled to be possibly defective:
- Slippery, smooth metal letters embedded in a sidewalk (Lynch v. Boston, 309 Mass. 458, 1941).
- An iron cover of a water shut-off box that sticks out 1¼ inch above the sidewalk (Thomas v. Winthrop, 222 Mass. 456, 1916).
The following road conditions were ruled not defective:
- A road that becomes slippery when wet, built of ordinary materials in an ordinary manner and in accordance with commonly prevailing practice (National Laundry Co. v. Newton, 300 Mass. 126, 1938).
- A 4 ft² slab of a sidewalk sticking out ¾ inch above an adjacent slab in a busy area (Vellante v. Watertown, 300 Mass. 207, 1938).
- A one inch gap and one inch height difference between a cement slab of a sidewalk and granite curbing, not at a crosswalk (Galante v. Brockton, 305 Mass. 480, 1940).
- Rail tracks that stick out 2 inch above the surface of a crosswalk, since a municipality is not required to keep a crosswalk in the same condition for safety as a sidewalk (Swenson v. Boston, 317 Mass. 295, 1944).
- A 2-3 inch rise in the pavement between an inbound and outbound rail track, not at a crosswalk (Hawkes v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 328 Mass. 140, 1951).
- A sidewalk interrupted by a driveway entrance, where the driveway was sloped 1 7/16 inch per foot (Johnson v. Orange, 320 Mass. 336, 1946).
- A sidewalk interrupted by a driveway entrance 5½ inch below the sidewalk (Heaney v. Lowell, 262 Mass. 338, 1928).
- A sidewalk interrupted by a driveway entrance 5 inch below the sidewalk (White v. Worcester, 312 Mass. 279, 1942).
- A sidewalk interrupted by a driveway entrance 2½ inch below the sidewalk, even though there is no longer a driveway (Gustat v. Everett, 278 Mass. 1, 1931).
- Cobble stones on the edge of a sidewalk and level with the sidewalk (Burke v. Haverhill, 187 Mass. 65, 1904).
- A rope stretched across a road above the ground and attached to objects outside the limits of the road (Barber v. Roxbury, 93 Mass. 318, 1865).
- Cuttings of brush that do not impede or obstruct travel, but are poisonous and have an attractive quality as a food (Trum v. Paxton, 329 Mass. 434, 1952).
- The presence of a mounting block, installed on the sidewalk a long time ago to mount a horse and no longer useful (Clohecy v. Haverhill, 299 Mass. 378, 1938).
- Obstructions on the road that are far enough from the traveled path that they do not affect the security or convenience of travelers (Smith v. Wendell, 61 Mass. 498, 1851).