Ruiz v. Pelson Realty Trust, 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 346 (2001)

Citation: Ruiz v. Pelson Realty Trust, 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 346 (2001)
Parent Document: Ruiz v. Pelson Realty Trust, 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 346 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2001-05-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8354352/ruiz-v-pelson-realty-trust/ ↗

Full Text

1,561 chars

In Hemingway, the Supreme Judicial Court stated that the fundamental purpose of the doctrine of the implied warranty of habitability is to guarantee that in a rental for dwelling purposes “the premises are fit for human occupation.” Hemingway, 363 Mass. at 199. See G.L.c. 111, §127A. The danger of injury or death resulting from substandard conditions in premises rented for dwelling purposes that render it unfit for human habitation is no less for a tenant who is on the premises than it is for a guest. It is certainly well understood by landlords and other property owners who rent premises for dwelling purposes that tenants *349will have guests and visitors in their apartments or units. In view of the fact that a declared purpose of the Massachusetts State Sanitary Code is “to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the occupants and of the general public,” 105 C.M.R. 410.001 (emphasis added), it is reasonable for such guests and visitors to assume that the rental premises that they visit will be fit for human habitation.3 For these reasons, Section 342A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides grounds for a non-tenant guest to bring a civil action for damages against the tenant’s landlord for violation of the implied warranty of habitability. For cases applying Section 342A for the benefit of plaintiffs who were not parties to the contract see Parent v. Stone & Webster Engr. Corp., 408 Mass. 108 (1990); Banaghan v. Drewey, 340 Mass. 73 (1959); Power Serv. Supply Inc. v. E.W. Wiggins Airways, Inc., 9 Mass.App.Ct. 122 (1980).4

Other Sections in This Document (27)

Full Text