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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6588486/fletcher-v-littleton/ ↗

Full Text

1,290 chars

The plaintiffs accept the trial judge’s finding that the defendant had no knowledge of the potentially dangerous combination of wiring and insulation in the house, and was therefore not negligent. They argue, however, that the warranty of habitability imposes strict liability for injuries resulting from *26its breach,7 and proof of the breach is found in the violation of the MEC or the State sanitary code. The trial judge, however, found that the combination of the wiring in the house and the spray-in insulation was an “acceptable and common building renovation practice at the time”; we view this as an implicit finding that the house was not in violation of the MEC. The plaintiffs contend, nonetheless, that the wiring was in violation of the MEC, citing portions of the National Electrical Code (which the MEC incorporates by reference; see note 5, supra) that indicate that knob-and-tube wiring should not be used in a hollow area filled with spray-in insulation.8 The National Electrical Code states clearly, however, that it applies only to new installations and repairs and does not require that existing wiring be brought up to compliance with this later adopted provision of the code. See Rule 7 of the National Electrical Code, as appearing in 527 Code Mass. Regs. § 12.00.

Other Sections in This Document (20)

Full Text