Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Citation
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Parent Document
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2009-10-28
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8357287/johnson-v-rufo/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (34)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
- Section 9A
Full Text
746 charsLauriat, Peter M., J. In this negligence action, James Johnson (“Johnson”), seeks to recover damages from his former landlord, Pompeo Rufo (“Rufo”), for injuries he suffered while using a power table saw inside his apartment in Rufo’s apartment building. The complaint asserts breach of warranty of habitability (Count I), failure to make repairs (Count II), G.L.c. 93A violations (Count III), negligence (Count IV), and failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance (Count V). Rufo has moved for summary judgment on all counts. For the following reasons, Rufo’s summary judgment motion is allowed. Rufo’s motion to strike certain of the materials Johnson submitted in opposition to Rufo’s summary judgment motion is also allowed. BACKGROUND