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
723 charsNor did the plaintiffs prove at trial that the wiring was in violation of those more general portions of the sanitary code or the MEC that require electrical fixtures to be “reasonably safe to persons and property.” See Rule 1 of the National Electrical Code, as appearing in 527 Code Mass. Regs. § 12.00. Although the trial judge found that the wiring, perhaps combined with a damp light fixture, caused the fire, he did not find that the wiring was patently unsafe; because of its accepted use under the *27MEC, he could not so find. Likewise, there was no proof at trial that the wiring was otherwise defective so as to constitute a breach of the implied warranty of habitability. See Crowell v. McCaffrey, supra at 451.