Landlord Held Strictly Liable For Intoxicated Tenant’s Fall Through Defective Porch Guardrail

by Rich Vetstein on March 12, 2012 · 5 comments

in Insurance, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Real Estate Litigation, Rental Housing, Safety

Another Expansion Of Massachusetts Landlord Liability

In yet another case demonstrating Massachusetts’ inhospitable legal environment towards residential landlords, Northeast Housing Court Judge David Kerman has ruled that an owner of a mixed used residential – commercial building is “strictly liable” for a drunk tenant’s fall through a defective porch guardrail. The 17-page ruling is Sheehan v. Weaver, and is embedded below. The imposition of strict liability, sometimes called absolute or no-fault liability, makes landlords 100% liable for the injuries of tenants where there is a building code violation, regardless of whether the tenant was equally at fault for the accident. This is a troubling ruling and another reason supporting the notion that Massachusetts is landlord unfriendly!

Faulty Porch Guardrail

The landlord, David Weaver, owned a building with three residential apartments located above a commercial establishment. None of the apartments were owner-occupied. One of Weaver’s residential tenants, William Sheehan, fell through a porch guardrail, several stories onto the asphalt pavement below, suffering serious injuries. There was evidence that Sheehan was intoxicated, however, the connection of the guardrail to its post gave way because it was defective and in violation of the Building Code.

After a four-day trial in the Housing Court, a jury found for the tenant on the negligence claim, awarding approximately $145,000 after a 40% reduction for the plaintiff’s own negligence. The jury also found the landlord strictly liable, assessing $242,000 in damages.

Building Code Violation At Issue

The Massachusetts State Building Code provides for strict (100%) liability for any personal injuries caused by any building code violation at any “place of assembly, theatre, special hall, public hall, factory, workshop, manufacturing establishment or building.” The landlord argued that the primarily residential structure was not sufficiently commercial to be considered a “building” within the meaning of the Building Code’s strict liability provision. But Judge David D. Kerman disagreed:

“[T]he structure in this case may well be at the outer margin of the class of structures that fall within the ambit of the term ‘building’ in the strict liability law,” wrote Kerman. “However, it is my opinion that the mixed residential-commercial four-unit non-owner-occupied structure in this case is ‘commercial’ and ‘public’ enough to fit within the term ‘building’ in section 51.”

The imposition of strict liability resulted in the landlord being hit with the full amount of the $242,000 judgment with no reduction for the tenant’s comparative negligence due to his intoxication. Ouch.

Commentary: Bad Decision

As I stated to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, this is a troubling ruling. The Building Code provision, passed in the late 1800’s, was clearly intended to cover structures with a distinctively commercial nature, i.e., “public hall, factory, workshop, manufacturing establishing or building.” The law was not intended to cover a predominantly residential apartment building with commercial/retail on the ground floor, in my opinion.

This ruling will now expand liability for residential developers who have built quite a number of mixed-use residential projects in the last few years. This decision can be read as providing strict liability for anyone injured due to any type of building code violation, however minor. Property managers and commercial insurers should be aware of this ruling, and ensure that there are no building code issues which could cause harm to tenants.

Given the concerning expansion of liability in this case, look for this ruling to get appealed. Judge Kerman is a well-respected judge, and this decision is a close call, but I think he went a bit too far outside the legislative intent behind the law.

_____________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney. For more information, please contact him at 508-620-5352 or info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

Sheehan v. Weaver

  • Pingback: Common Sense Prevails! SJC Rejects Strict Liability for Intoxicated Tenant's Fall | Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog()

  • Robert Carnevale, Esq.

    An intoxicated tenant is as entitlled to a safe premises as a sober one, and in much more need thereof.
    Robert Carnevale
    Law Office of Robert Carnevale, LLC
    13 Baldwin Rd.
    Westford, MA 01886
    978-392-9770
    Robert@carnevalelaw.com

    •  That’s funny Bob. I guess these days, it’s reasonably foreseeable that tenants will be drunk, stumbling around their apartments!

      • Robert

        Thanks Dick,
        Sorry. I did not mean to be glib. I am sure you can tell I represent injured clients. I also really can not claim originality of the statement. I really gave a paraphrase of a statement by Benjamin Cardozo at the end of a ruling he made involving a drunk who had fallen on a defective sidewalk in New York.
        I hope all is well with you.
        I do enjoy a little banter in our chosen profession.
        Bob Carnevale

        •  I like good banter as well. Feel free to comment more often!

Previous post:

Next post:

Real Time Analytics