Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Citation
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-01-04
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
- Fletcher v. Littleton, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 22 (2007)
Full Text
857 charsTrainor, J. A fire in a house owned by the defendant, Stephen *23F. Littleton, resulted in the death of three of the plaintiffs’ children and injury to two others. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for, among other theories, a breach of the implied warranty of habitability, alleging that the fire was caused by the defendant’s failure to keep the wiring in the house in compliance with the applicable codes. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that a combination of antiquated wiring hardware and spray-in foam insulation inside the living-room wall of the house led to the fire. After a jury-waived trial, a Superior Court judge found that the cause of the fire was, in fact, the wiring and insulation. The judge held, however, that because the defendant did not know and could not reasonably have known about the danger, the plaintiffs could not recover.