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

1,165 chars
The issue on which our decision turns, then, is whether this serious interference with the tenancy of the plaintiffs is the natural and probable consequence of what the landlord did, failed to do, or permitted to be done. Blackett, supra at 716. We conclude that this is a question of fact to be determined on remand. There is no authority, however, for the proposition that the defendant must provide around the clock security or other police services. In fact, the decision as to the proper means to ensure security is a discretionary decision left to the housing authority. See Wheeler v. Boston Hous. Auth., 34 Mass. App. Ct. 36, 39 (1993).13 Accordingly, we cannot say that the defendant breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to provide particular security measures. We do believe, however, that if the defendant has failed to take any measures, especially those measures which can be undertaken relatively easily, to remove unwelcome persons *287from the property that it owns and controls, and the presence of those persons seriously interferes with the tenancy, then the defendant may be liable for a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.