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

928 chars
The record is not perfectly clear regarding what parts of the premises are at issue. In their complaint and affidavits, the plaintiffs refer to streets and sidewalks in the development. At oral argument, counsel for the defendant referred to streets, parking lots, and basketball courts. It is for the trier of fact to determine what parts of the premises are being used for drug activity. We note that the term “common area” is not confined to shared hallways or lobbies, but can include external areas as well. See Mirick v. Galligan, 372 Mass. 146, 146-147, 149 (1977) (where landlord placed a dumpster for refuse collection on hilly and uneven terrain approximately eighty feet from apartment building, jury could find that dumpster was placed in a common area). We do not, of course, imply that activities *286on public areas, such as streets and sidewalks, are included within the scope of the warranty of quiet enjoyment.