Stone v. Sheperd Building Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Stone v. Sheperd Building Corp.

221 N.E.2d 878, 351 Mass. 705

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 221 N.E.2d 878 (Stone v. Sheperd Building Corp.) 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

Stone v. Sheperd Building Corp., 221 N.E.2d 878, 351 Mass. 705 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff Nettie M. Stone and her daughter Winifred now deceased. Mrs. Stone is the administratrix of her daughter’s estate. The injuries are alleged to have been sustained on May 26,1962, as a result of plaster falling from a ceiling in an apartment occupied by them which Mrs. Stone had rented from the defendant. The case is here on the plaintiff’s exceptions to the direction of verdicts for the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the “facts as presented” show a failure to disclose a dangerous condition by the defendant, and “the facts as presented create a continuing nuisance in the sense of landlord and tenant relationship.” Our examination of the record does not sustain either of these theories. We think it needless to state the facts in this case or extensively review the applicable law. Stumpf v. Leland, 242 Mass. 168. Delano v. Mother’s Super Mkt., Inc. 340 Mass. 293, 296-297. Carney v. Bereault, 348 Mass. 502, 509. The plaintiff also asks that “the present rule of liability ... be changed.” We are not inclined to do so. See Delano v. Mother’s Super Mkt., Inc. supra, 297.

Exceptions overruled.

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

This is an action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff Nettie M. Stone and her daughter Winifred now deceased. Mrs. Stone is the administratrix of her daughter’s estate. The injuries are alleged to have been sustained on May 26,1962, as a result of plaster falling from a ceiling in an apartment occupied by them which Mrs. Stone had rented from the defendant. The case is here on the plaintiff’s exceptions to the direction of verdicts for the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the “facts as presented” show a failure to disclose a dangerous condition by the defendant, and “the facts as presented create a continuing nuisance in the sense of landlord and tenant relationship.” Our examination of the record does not sustain either of these theories. We think it needless to state the facts in this case or extensively review the applicable law. Stumpf v. Leland, 242 Mass. 168. Delano v. Mother’s Super Mkt., Inc. 340 Mass. 293, 296-297. Carney v. Bereault, 348 Mass. 502, 509. The plaintiff also asks that “the present rule of liability ... be changed.” We are not inclined to do so. See Delano v. Mother’s Super Mkt., Inc. supra, 297.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 N.E.2d 878, 351 Mass. 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-sheperd-building-corp-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack