Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)

Citation: Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
Parent Document: Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2006-07-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6579392/humphrey-v-byron/ ↗

Full Text

1,425 chars

Humphrey also argues that even if we do not extend the Young rule to commercial tenancies as a general matter, we *328should nonetheless do so where the tenant is a small business with “a short-term lease, limited funds, and limited experience dealing with such defects.” Young v. Garwacki, supra at 168 (characterizing residential tenants). While we doubt that such a rule would be workable given the huge variety of businesses that enter into commercial leases, we need not decide the question on this record. We said in the Young case that a residential tenant, because of those characteristics, lacked an incentive “to pay for expensive work on a place he will soon be leaving.” Id. Under the common-law rule, neither the landlord nor the tenant had any incentive to repair defects, and as a result, they would likely go unrepaired. Id. at 168-169. The record does not suggest that the same danger exists in commercial tenancies. Even a small commercial tenant such as Gateway would have an incentive to make repairs, for example, to avoid workers’ compensation claims and to maintain an orderly and productive business without injuries to employees or customers. A small commercial tenant, unlike a residential tenant, could also regard repair expenses as a cost of doing business and raise prices accordingly.* *7 Nothing in the record suggests that Gateway’s small size left it without an incentive to pay for repairs.

Other Sections in This Document (30)

Full Text