Morrell v. White City Apartments, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Morrell v. White City Apartments, Inc.

186 N.E.2d 817, 345 Mass. 766

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 21, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 N.E.2d 817 (Morrell v. White City Apartments, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morrell v. White City Apartments, Inc., 186 N.E.2d 817, 345 Mass. 766 (Mass. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Appellate Division affirmed. These two actions before us on a consolidated report are for damage to property resulting from a fire (near an incinerator chimney) in an apartment house in which the plaintiffs were tenants. The trial judge in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston denied the defendant’s request for a ruling that “[t]here was no evidence of any negligence . . . of the defendant which . . . contributed to the damage.” The Appellate Division correctly took the view, for reasons stated in its opinion, that there was no such evidence. The district fire chief testified in substance that he was not able to “observe anything that might cause excessive heat, or any defect in the incinerator or chimney which would indicate that they were improperly maintained or used.” This is not a case in which negligence could have been inferred from the circumstances.

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

Order of Appellate Division affirmed. These two actions before us on a consolidated report are for damage to property resulting from a fire (near an incinerator chimney) in an apartment house in which the plaintiffs were tenants. The trial judge in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston denied the defendant’s request for a ruling that “[t]here was no evidence of any negligence . . . of the defendant which . . . contributed to the damage.” The Appellate Division correctly took the view, for reasons stated in its opinion, that there was no such evidence. The district fire chief testified in substance that he was not able to “observe anything that might cause excessive heat, or any defect in the incinerator or chimney which would indicate that they were improperly maintained or used.” This is not a case in which negligence could have been inferred from the circumstances.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 N.E.2d 817, 345 Mass. 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrell-v-white-city-apartments-inc-mass-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack