Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Doe v. New Bedford Housing Authority, 630 N.E.2d 248 (1994)

Citation
Doe v. New Bedford Housing Authority, 630 N.E.2d 248 (1994)
Parent Document
Doe v. New Bedford Housing Authority, 630 N.E.2d 248 (1994)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
1994-03-14

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text

1,007 chars
The plaintiffs have pointed to no case in which a landlord was found to have breached the warranty of habitability as a result of a nonphysical “defect” in the premises, and our own review of our case law and that of other jurisdictions likewise reveals no such case. But see Pippin v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 78 Ill. 2d 204, 214 (1979) (Clark, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“Sáfe encompasses both the physical and social conditions of the premises” [emphasis in original]). The plaintiffs rely on Trentacost v. Brussel, 82 N.J. 214 (1980), where the Supreme Court of New Jersey held, in general terms, that the warranty of habitability included the provision of reasonable measures of security. Trentacost, supra at 227-228. In Trentacost, however, the plaintiff was attacked in the hallway of an apartment building that had no lock on its front door. Id. at 218. The court found that the *282landlord breached the warranty because he failed to secure the front door in any way.8 Id. at 228.