Landlord/Tenant

The plaintiff alleged that he fell on snow while exiting the defendant’s building, striking his “brain,” neck and back. He also claimed that he suffered from depression and psychological problems as a result of this incident. There had been a substantial snow storm the night before, and the plaintiff’s counsel asserted that a portion of snow on the walkway was left untreated by the third-party defendant, a snow removal contractor, and that the defendant, a housing authority, knew or should have known of the alleged defective condition. The snow-removal contractor testified that he removed the snow just before the alleged incident. The defendant testified that no defective condition existed, and that if one was found to have existed that the housing authority had no notice of any alleged defective condition. The jury returned with a defense verdict.

The plaintiff, a minor, sued the landlords of the duplex in which he lived. The complaint alleged breach of warranty of habitability, violation of G.L. c. 93A and negligence. The minor plaintiff contended that there was excess moisture in the premises and that mold developed in the bathroom, the living room and in the upstairs bedrooms. The plaintiff further contended that the landlords were advised of the condition and that the minor was experiencing allergy and upper respiratory type symptoms. The minor plaintiff sought treatment for allergy-like symptoms including congestion, runny nose, ear infections and difficulty breathing. The plaintiff's family contacted the Board of Health, which inspected the premises and issued a notice of violation.

The plaintiff identified as medical experts his pediatrician and an allergist, whose reports opined that the symptoms were related to the mold found within the plaintiff's home. However, we ascertained that neither doctor had visited the plaintiff's home nor could identify precisely the type of mold alleged to have been present in the premises. We filed motions on behalf of the defendant landlords seeking to preclude the testimony of the doctors on the grounds that their opinions were unreliable. The court allowed our motion as to the pediatrician and held that he could not testify that the purported presence of mold had caused the minor’s injuries, although he could testify as to his treatment. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the court similarly ruled that the allergist could testify as to treatment but not as to causation. As a result of these rulings, the case reached a favorable settlement.

In this action a district court judge had already awarded the plaintiff $84,010.67, including interest and costs. We appealed this decision.

The plaintiff, a tenant on the defendant's property, alleged he slipped and fell on an unnatural accumulation of snow and ice on an exterior stairway. There were no eyewitnesses either to the fall or to the condition of the stairs at the time of the incident. The plaintiff was first treated two months after the accident, and although the plaintiff claimed a torn rotator cuff, his medical records did not include this diagnosis. Further, the plaintiff failed to give proper notice to the defendant or anyone else regarding his slip and fall.

Nearly two years after the district court trial, this matter was presented before a jury. Although the plaintiff attempted to settle the case just as the jury bell sounded, he was unsuccessful. The jury came back with a defense verdict.