Founds v. Board of Trustees of Southeastern Massachusetts University

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Founds v. Board of Trustees of Southeastern Massachusetts University

431 N.E.2d 965, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 959, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1224

Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided March 3, 1982·Published

Opinion

1. The plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief in tort because the university was at the time of the incident in question immune from liability on the basis of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Hannigan v. New Gamma-Delta Chapter of Kappa Sigma Fraternity, Inc., 367 Mass. 658, 659 (1975). See also Kerlinsky v. Commonwealth, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 910 (1979).

Michael E. Alexander for the plaintiffs. Walter R. Smith for the defendant.

Nor does the plaintiff state a claim in contract because it cannot be found on the evidence, as is necessary, that the plaintiff had enrolled in (or even applied for) any course or program at the defendant institution leading to a master’s degree in education. See Mahavongsanan v. Hall, 529 F.2d 448, 450 (5th Cir. 1976). Contrast Peretti v. Montana, 464 F. Supp. 784, 787 (D. Mont. 1979).

2. As the principal plaintiff has failed to state any legally cognizable claim against the Board of Trustees, the derivative claim of her spouse likewise fails.

3. Deciding this matter as we do on the merits, we find it unnecessary to discuss any of the procedural points raised in this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

1. The plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief in tort because the university was at the time of the incident in question immune from liability on the basis of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Hannigan v. New Gamma-Delta Chapter of Kappa Sigma Fraternity, Inc., 367 Mass. 658, 659 (1975). See also Kerlinsky v. Commonwealth, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 910 (1979).

Michael E. Alexander for the plaintiffs. Walter R. Smith for the defendant.

Nor does the plaintiff state a claim in contract because it cannot be found on the evidence, as is necessary, that the plaintiff had enrolled in (or even applied for) any course or program at the defendant institution leading to a master’s degree in education. See Mahavongsanan v. Hall, 529 F.2d 448, 450 (5th Cir. 1976). Contrast Peretti v. Montana, 464 F. Supp. 784, 787 (D. Mont. 1979).

2. As the principal plaintiff has failed to state any legally cognizable claim against the Board of Trustees, the derivative claim of her spouse likewise fails.

3. Deciding this matter as we do on the merits, we find it unnecessary to discuss any of the procedural points raised in this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Founds v. Board of Trustees of Southeastern Massachusetts University, 431 N.E.2d 965, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 959, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1224 (Mass. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

431 N.E.2d 965 (Founds v. Board of Trustees of Southeastern Massachusetts University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related