Timmer v. Riesling Associates, 4 Mass. L. Rptr. 14 (1995)

Citation: Timmer v. Riesling Associates, 4 Mass. L. Rptr. 14 (1995)
Parent Document: Timmer v. Riesling Associates, 4 Mass. L. Rptr. 14 (1995)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1995-03-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8351937/timmer-v-riesling-associates/ ↗

Full Text

729 chars

Timmer relies on Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. v. Yanofsky, 380 Mass. 326 (1980), for the proposition that the warranty of habitability has been extended to commercial settings. However, Yanofsky simply holds that where a commercial lessor expressly agrees to make repairs and negligently fails to do so, a lessee injured as a result may seek indemnification for his or her injuries. Id. at 331-32. Yanofsky does not address or apply the warranty of habitability in the context of a commercial setting, but rather discusses a landlord’s duty of care to its commercial tenant under ordinary negligence law. Thus, Timmer’s claim alleging breach of the warranty of habitability is not viable against the defendants. II.

Other Sections in This Document (13)

Full Text