McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- Citation
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- Parent Document
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-04-08
Other Sections in This Document (25)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
- McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 300 (1999)
Full Text
950 charsWe reject the plaintiff’s contention that she is entitled to a new trial based on her claims that the defendant violated the lease1 and the covenant of quiet enjoyment, G. L. c. 186, § 14. Negligence is a prerequisite for recovery under both theories. See Al-Ziab v. Mourgis, 424 Mass. 847, 850 (1997) (showing of negligence is required for recovery under quiet enjoyment statute); Anderson v. Fox Hill Village Homeowners Corp., 424 Mass. 365, 367 (1997) (“a landlord, who agrees in a lease to remove snow and ice and negligently fails to perform that duty *302may be liable to his tenant”); Carey v. Malley, 327 Mass. 189, 193 (1951). The jury’s determination that the defendant was not negligent precludes the possibility that the directed verdicts on these claims constitute a basis for a new trial. Both the lease and the State code provisions merely restated a duty which the defendant acknowledged. We turn now to issues arising from the trial.