Caliendo v. Town of Arlington

1 Mass. L. Rptr. 624
Massachusetts Superior Court·Decided March 11, 1994·No. No. 92-6017·Published

Opinion

Zobel, J.

Assuming for present purposes that the Town installed the sewer pipes (or that it suffered them [625] to remain on plaintiffs realty), the trespass involved constitutes an intentional tort, Edgarton v. H.P. Welch Co., 321 Mass. 603, 612-13 (1947); 1 Nolan & Sartorio, Tort Law (37 Massachusetts Practice) 53-54 (1992).

The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L.c. 258, does not apply to intentional torts, Spring v. Geriatric Authority of Holyoke, 394 Mass. 274, 284-85 (1985); Breault v. Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners of Springfield, 401 Mass. 26, 35 (1987).

At common law, public entities enjoyed immunity “from suit in sort claims arising from the acts or omissions of public employees.” Breault v. Chatman of the Board of Fire Commissioners of Springfield, supra, at 35.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Town of Arlington’s Motion for Summary Judgment be, and the same hereby is, ALLOWED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Caliendo v. Town of Arlington, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 624 (Mass. Ct. App. 1994).

1 Mass. L. Rptr. 624 (Caliendo v. Town of Arlington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spring v. Geriatric Authority of Holyoke
475 N.E.2d 727 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1985)
Edgarton v. H. P. Welch Co.
74 N.E.2d 674 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Breault v. Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners
513 N.E.2d 1277 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1987)