Source: http://masscases.com/cases/distapp/2010/2010massappdiv26.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:49:54+00:00

Document:
Present: Williams, P.J., Hand & Singh, JJ.
Edward S. Bear, Jr. for the plaintiff.
SINGH, J. Plaintiff Pauline Civetti (Civetti) brought this action against defendant Mark Petti, Trustee of 6-8 Brook Street Realty Trust (Petti), to recover damages for injuries sustained in a fall at her home, an apartment she rented from Petti. Civetti claimed that she fell down a set of stairs because she caught her shoe on a nail that was protruding in the stairway, and that the fall was caused by Pettis negligence in maintaining the property. After trial, a jury found that Petti was not negligent and judgment was entered in his favor.
Civetti appealed, alleging that the trial judge erred in denying her request for jury instructions on the issues of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the implied warranty of habitability, and in denying her proposed verdict slip regarding those issues. Civetti also contends that the trial judge erred in ruling that a letter from her doctor to her lawyer regarding her medical condition be redacted prior to submission to the jury.
Civettis sister insisted that no workers be allowed into the apartment until after the holidays.
On the afternoon of Saturday, December 13, 2003, Civetti walked out of her apartment and, as she started down the stairs to the first floor, felt her left foot get caught on something. She lost her balance and fell forward, landing at the bottom of the stairs and injuring her left side shoulder, elbow, and wrist. Civettis two sisters came out of her apartment to her aid. When they looked up at the stairs, they noticed a nail protruding approximately one-eighth to one-sixteenth of an inch from the seventh stair down from the top. Prior to the accident, no one had noticed the nail. Civetti was taken to the hospital where her shoulder, elbow, and wrist were treated. She wore a cast on her hand and a brace on her elbow for three weeks and later underwent physical therapy.
1. As a preliminary matter, Petti argues that we should not consider Civettis appeal because her brief was filed more than 30 days after the Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. 10 notice of receipt of Rule 8C Appeal and briefing schedule issued to the parties by this Division. See Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. 19(a) (for appeals under Rule 8C, appellant shall serve and file his or her brief within thirty days after notice from the Appellate Division of receipt of the appeal from the trial court). Because the parties have fully briefed the issues, we elect in our discretion, Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A. 2, to review this appeal on the merits. See Randolph v. Madison Sq. Realty Mgm., Inc., 2008 Mass. App. Div. 186 , 187.
2. There was no error in the trial judges refusal to give the jury instructions and special questions requested by Civetti on any breach of either the covenant of quiet enjoyment or the implied warranty of habitablility. The judges decision to limit the instructions and special questions to the cause of action actually pleaded in the complaint was a proper exercise of his discretion. See Bouley v. Reisman, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 118 , 121 (1995) (trial judge has considerable discretion in framing jury instructions). Civettis complaint set forth a single cause of action -- common law negligence. The complaint did not even identify the parties as having a landlord-tenant relationship, ordinarily a predicate for at least quiet enjoyment claims. As the case progressed through the different stages of discovery, motions, and the pretrial conference, the issue of negligence remained the sole focus.
3. It is unnecessary to address the remaining issue raised by Civetti of the propriety of the courts order for the redacted doctors letter that was introduced into evidence. The issue was material to the claim of negligence. Based on the evidence at trial, there was no error in the jurys verdict for Petti on Civettis negligence claim.
[Note 1] In any event, it is unlikely in the circumstances of this case that jury instructions or special questions on a new claim for at least breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment would have resulted in a finding for Civetti. On the evidence presented, the jury properly found that Petti was not negligent. A landlord may not be held liable in negligence unless he has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to repair or remedy whatever condition on the premises caused the injuries of which the plaintiff complains. Young v. Garwacki, 380 Mass. 162 , 170 (1980); Roderick v. Brandy Hill Co., 36 Mass. App. Ct. 948 , 950 (1994). In this case, the evidence established that Petti was unable to make any repairs because the tenants had, literally, locked him out. Similarly, a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment based on a defect in the stairway would have required a consideration of whether Petti was negligent in failing to repair the defect, taking into account whether he had a reasonable opportunity to make such repairs after notice of the problem. See Al-Ziab v. Mourgis, 424 Mass. 847 , 850-851 (1997) ([T]o support the imposition of liability under the quiet enjoyment statute, there must be a showing of at least negligent conduct by a landlord . . . .).
As to a claim for physical injuries (as opposed to economic loss) caused by an alleged breach of the warranty of habitability, the Supreme Judicial Court left open the question of whether the standard is one of negligence, requiring notice to the landlord of the defect or code violation, or strict liability. Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790 , 796 n.8 (2009).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.