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

1,228 chars

The lease does provide that Gateway must obtain the landlord’s approval before making any repairs or alterations.10 The lease also contains a provision permitting the landlord to “make repairs and alterations compatible with Lessee’s use of premises if they should elect so to do.”11 However, a landlord’s reservation of “various rights to make alterations and repairs and to approve [the tenant’s] alterations and repairs,” and specifically a requirement in a lease “that the landlord give its *331prior written consent to construction that the tenant proposes to undertake,” does not render the landlord liable to the injured plaintiff for an injury occurring on the leased premises. Tuchinsky v. Beacon Prop. Mgt. Corp., supra at 471. As the Appeals Court commented, “That sort of clause is thought to enable a landlord to protect the structural integrity of its building.” Id., citing Bloom, Lease Drafting in Massachusetts §§ 7.56-7.60 (Mass. Continuing Legal Educ. 1996). These provisions do not “alter the basic allocation of responsibilities that the parties have worked out in their detailed lease, namely, that the tenant is in control of and responsible for its leased space and that the landlord is not.” Id. at 472.

Other Sections in This Document (30)

Full Text