Fennelly v. Kimball Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2001)

Citation: Fennelly v. Kimball Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2001)
Parent Document: Fennelly v. Kimball Court Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2001-09-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8354506/fennelly-v-kimball-court-apartm... ↗

Full Text

1,467 chars

On May 30, 2000, there was a fire in the Unit which rendered it uninhabitable and caused damage to the common area and surrounding apartments. (Zorzonello Aff. ¶6; Fennelly Dep. p. 25.) Since the fire, Fennelly and her sons have been temporarily staying with family elsewhere in Woburn. (Agreed Facts ¶17.) Fennelly was not home when the fire started, as she was scheduled that afternoon for emergency surgery for a detached retina at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmaiy in Boston. (Fennelly Aff. ¶4.) Fennelly’s two sons were in the Unit with some friends when the fire began in the boys’ bedroom. (Zorzonello Aff. ¶6.) The smoke detectors and fire alarm in the Unit did not sound, so one of Fennelly’s sons called “911.” (Fennelly Aff. ¶5.) Prior to the fire, JRM had not received a written request from Fennelly to make any repairs to the smoke alarm in the Unit. (Zorzonello Aff. ¶7.) Fennelly had, however, informed the management office in 1999 and earlier in the year 2000 that the smoke detector was not working. (Fennelly Aff. ¶5.) The smoke alarm in the Unit was hard wired and can only be dismantled by physically unplugging the power source to the alarm. (Zorzonello Aff. ¶7.) The smoke alarm cover in no way affects the operation of the alarm. (Zorzonello Aff. ¶7.) The smoke alarm in the Unit does not notify the Fire Department, although there is a heat detector in the Unit which will notify the Fire Department if triggered. (Zorzonello Aff. ¶7.)

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text