Premises Liability: Massachusetts vs. Connecticut

In Massachusetts, premises liability is largely governed by common law, focusing on the duty of care owed by property owners to individuals who enter their property. Property owners owe a higher duty of care to invitees, who are individuals invited onto the property for business purposes, while they owe a moderate duty to licensees, and a minimal duty to trespassers. The state employs a comparative negligence standard, which means that damages may be adjusted based on the percentage of fault attributed to the injured party. Massachusetts courts have historically emphasized the importance of the property owner's knowledge of dangerous conditions as a crucial factor in determining liability.

Connecticut's approach to premises liability also centers on the duty of care owed to different classes of visitors, namely invitees, licensees, and trespassers. However, Connecticut has a slightly different framework, where property owners are required to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition for invitees and, to a lesser degree, for licensees. Trespassers are generally owed a duty of care only in specific circumstances, such as when the property owner is aware of their presence. Connecticut does not apply a pure comparative negligence system but follows a modified comparative negligence rule, disallowing recovery if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for the accident.