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
1,095 charsIn its amicus brief, the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys urges us to “explicitly confirm that breach of the implied warranty of habitability gives rise to liability for resulting injuries without further proof of negligence.” The amicus seems to argue that liability under the warranty of habitability should be imposed in the same manner as liability would be imposed for a breach of the implied “warranty of merchantability” under the Uniform Commercial Code. Applying this theory of liability to residential property would result in warranty liability being “imposed even where the product was properly designed, manufactured, or sold; conformed to industry standards; and passed regulatory muster, and even where the consumer used the product negligently.” Haglund v. Philip Morris Inc., 446 Mass. 741, 748 (2006). It would not be necessary to prove a substantial violation of the sanitary code or other codes promulgated to ensure the habitability of premises. See Jablonski v. Casey, 64 Mass. App. Ct. at 746. We decline to adopt this theory of liability for residential property.