Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitnegligencetrialverdicttrustleasecommercial lease
plaintiffdefendantliabilityappealtrialmotiontrustleasecommercial lease

Related Cases

Bishop v. TES Realty Trust, 459 Mass. 9, 942 N.E.2d 173

Facts

Mary Bishop operated a tanning salon in a building leased from TES Realty Trust. She notified the landlord about leaks in the roof and skylights via a certified letter, but no repairs were made until much later. On May 14, 2002, rainwater leaked from the skylight, causing plaster to fall into Bishop's eye, leading to a serious injury. Bishop filed a lawsuit alleging negligence for the landlord's failure to repair the roof.

The plaintiff, Mary Bishop (Bishop or tenant), operated a tanning salon from a single-story building in Swampscott she leased from the defendants, TES Realty Trust (trust) and Billie Jo Ulery, a trustee of the trust (collectively, landlord). On June 5, 2000, Bishop sent a certified letter, return receipt requested, to Michelle Timlin, Ulery's daughter and a trustee of the trust, directed to both Ulery and Timlin, complaining about the leaking roof, including cracks and leaks in the two skylights near the tanning beds.

Issue

Does the statutory duty of a landlord to remedy unsafe conditions apply to commercial leases?

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.

Rule

Under G.L. c. 186, § 19, a landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care to remedy unsafe conditions upon receiving notice from a tenant, and this duty cannot be waived in a lease.

Under G.L. c. 186, § 19, after receiving the required notice of an unsafe condition, not caused by the tenant, in a portion of the premises controlled by the tenant, the tenant's invitee, or a subtenant, a 'landlord or lessor of any real estate except an owner-occupied two or three-family dwelling' owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to remedy the unsafe condition.

Analysis

The court determined that the landlord's duty under G.L. c. 186, § 19 applies to commercial landlords. The evidence suggested that the tenant provided notice of the unsafe condition, and the landlord's failure to remedy it could be seen as a breach of statutory duty that contributed to the tenant's injuries. Therefore, the judge's directed verdict was deemed erroneous.

The jury reasonably could have found that, because the leaks in the roof at or around the skylights were near the electrical tanning beds, an unsafe condition existed of which the landlord had notice; and because the landlord had a statutory duty to repair the unsafe condition, but failed to do so, the injury that resulted was caused by the landlord's breach.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, allowing the jury to consider the landlord's statutory duty to remedy the unsafe condition.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is vacated and the case remanded for a new trial on the plaintiff's claim of statutory liability under G.L. c. 186, § 19.

Who won?

The tenant, Mary Bishop, prevailed as the court found that the statutory duty applied to her case, warranting a new trial.

The plaintiff appealed, and we transferred her appeal to this court on our own motion.

You must be