Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Citation
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006) 4.
- Parent Document
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-07-21
Other Sections in This Document (30)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
- Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006)
Full Text
816 chars4. Control over premises. Our decision today leaves intact the rule that “a lessor of commercial premises is liable in tort for personal injuries only if either (1) he contracted to make repairs and made them negligently, or (2) the defect that caused the *329injury was in a ‘common area,’ or other area appurtenant to the leased area, over which the lessor had some control.” Chausse v. Coz, 405 Mass. 264, 266 (1989). There is no suggestion that the landlord contracted to make repairs. As the lease plainly shows, the parties to the lease agreed that Gateway would have this responsibility. Humphrey argues, however, that liability should be imposed on the landlord because it retained control over the premises. Even viewed in the light most favorable to Humphrey, the record does not support such a conclusion.