Homesavers Council of Greenfield Gardens, Inc. v. Sanchez, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 453 (2007)

Citation: Homesavers Council of Greenfield Gardens, Inc. v. Sanchez, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 453 (2007)
Parent Document: Homesavers Council of Greenfield Gardens, Inc. v. Sanchez, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 453 (2007)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2007-10-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6588732/homesavers-council-of-greenfiel... ↗

Full Text

1,081 chars

We see no reason in law or policy why emotional distress, where foreseeable, should not be viewed as a consequence of interference with quiet enjoyment. Nor do we believe that the requirements of the Agis decision relative to common-law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress must be imported into an analysis of emotional distress as a consequence of a statutory violation under G. L. c. 186, § 14. Negligent conduct, as opposed to wilful or reckless behavior, is all that is required for a violation of the quiet enjoyment statute. See Cruz, Mgmt. Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782, 789 (1994); Al-Ziab v. Mourgis, 424 Mass. 847, 850-851 (1997). If foreseeable harm follows causally from the negligence, there is no basis for elevating the burden of proof of a single kind of harm (i.e., emotional distress) to that required with respect to a common-law tort where either intentional or reckless behavior must be present. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the objectives of those remedial landlord-tenant statutes of which G. L. c. 186, § 14, is an example.7

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text