## Facts

- James E. Sandler was injured on October 29, 1987, when he fell from his bicycle while riding through a tunnel under the Eliot Bridge in Cambridge on the Dr. Paul Dudley White Bikeway.
- The bikeway and tunnel were controlled and maintained by the Commonwealth through the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC).
- Evidence permitted findings that the tunnel was unlit and contained an uncovered drain approximately eight inches wide, twelve inches long, and eight inches deep.
- The drain previously had a cover, and the tunnel was designed to have lighting, but vandals had removed the cover and made the lights inoperative.
- Vandalism to the tunnel’s features was recurring, and evidence indicated the MDC knew the lights were frequently not working and that covers were periodically removed.
- The MDC did not routinely replace stolen drain covers and lacked a systematic inspection program for the bikeway.
- Because the land was open for recreational use without charge, the statutory recreational-use immunity framework applied, limiting governmental liability to wanton or reckless conduct rather than ordinary negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Sandler, was legally sufficient to permit a jury to find that the MDC’s conduct was wanton or reckless under G.L. c. 21, § 17C.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying the Commonwealth’s motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict where the record showed persistent maintenance failures but no legally sufficient proof of wanton or reckless conduct.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment for Sandler and ordered judgment for the Commonwealth.
- The court held that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a finding of wanton or reckless conduct.
- The trial judge therefore should have allowed the Commonwealth’s motion for a directed verdict or, alternatively, its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- When governmental land is made available to the public for recreational use without charge, G.L. c. 21, § 17C generally bars liability for negligence; liability may be imposed only for wanton or reckless conduct.
- Wanton or reckless conduct is qualitatively different from negligence and requires a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result, reflecting conscious disregard of a known, serious risk.
- Knowledge of recurring hazards and failure to adopt better inspection or maintenance practices may establish negligence, even serious negligence, but does not alone satisfy the wanton-or-reckless threshold absent evidence of a very high probability of grave harm and indifference to that probability.
- On review of a directed verdict or JNOV denial, the court accepts the evidence most favorable to the verdict winner but independently determines whether that evidence can meet the governing legal standard.

## Conclusion

The court held that persistent failures to maintain lighting and replace a drain cover in a bikeway tunnel, even with knowledge of recurring vandalism, amounted at most to negligence and did not meet the statutory requirement of wanton or reckless conduct needed to impose liability for injuries occurring on free public recreational land.


Sandler v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 334 (1995)