Bishop v. TES Realty Trust

459 Mass. 9 (2011) · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · March 1, 2011

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that G. L. c. 186, § 19, imposes a statutory duty on commercial landlords, after receiving required written notice, to exercise reasonable care to remedy unsafe conditions not caused by the tenant. The court vacated a directed verdict for the landlords and remanded for a new trial on the statutory-liability claim, concluding that the evidence could support findings of notice, an unsafe condition, breach, and causation.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Writing for the Court
Gants
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Decision date
March 1, 2011
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed from directed verdict for defendants in Superior Court; case transferred to SJC on own motion.
Standard of review
De novo review of directed verdict, viewing evidence in light most favorable to plaintiff.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Mary Bishop v. TES Realty Trust; Billie Jo Ulery
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

negligencestandard of careduty of carepremises liabilitylandlord tenantstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

TortsReal EstateLandlord TenantStatutory Interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether G. L. c. 186, § 19, applies to commercial leases
  2. Whether judge erred in granting directed verdict for landlord on statutory duty claim

Holdings

  1. The statutory duty under G. L. c. 186, § 19, to exercise reasonable care to correct an unsafe condition after receiving tenant's written notice applies to commercial landlords and leases.
  2. The judge erred in granting directed verdict; evidence was sufficient for jury to find landlord breached statutory duty and causation.

Key quotations

The fundamental issue on appeal is whether the statutory duty of a landlord under G. L. c. 186, § 19, to exercise reasonable care to correct an unsafe condition described in a written notice from a tenant applies to commercial leases. We conclude that it does. (at 11)
The mere fact that a statute imposes a duty of care beyond that provided under the common law is not a reason to interpret the statute to be consistent with the common law where the Legislature intended to impose on landlords a duty that did not exist under the common law. (at 16)

Factual background

Plaintiff tenant operated a tanning salon in a leased building. She sent certified letter to landlord complaining of leaking roof and skylights. Landlord performed some roof repairs but not on skylights side. Later, rain water leaked through skylight, causing plaster to fall into plaintiff's eye, leading to a fall and serious rotator cuff injury.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed suit in Superior Court alleging landlord's negligence in failing to repair roof. After trial, judge allowed landlord's motion for directed verdict. Plaintiff appealed; SJC transferred case on own motion.

Remand instructions

Case remanded for new trial on plaintiff's claim of statutory liability under G. L. c. 186, § 19.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…