Gardner v. Simpson Financing Ltd. Partnership
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112536, 2013 WL 4059317, 963 F. Supp. 2d 72 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord who has notice of a specific, non-technical fire hazard has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate it. Expert testimony is not required to establish the standard of care or causation where the determination of negligence rests on matters of common knowledge for a lay jury.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Gayle Gardner, Tanya Puliseiano, Crystal Caissie, and Louise Felteau were tenants at an apartment complex owned and operated by Simpson Financing Limited Partnership.
- On May 19, 21, and 25, 2008, multiple small fires occurred in the landscaping mulch on the property.
- Following these fires, a Peabody Fire Inspector, Joseph DiFranco, suggested to Simpson employees that they mitigate the fire risk by pulling the mulch away from the apartment buildings.
- Andrew Filippone, Simpson's maintenance supervisor, also received a recommendation from the fire department to move the mulch back from the building and relayed this to the property manager.
- Simpson did not move the mulch away from the buildings after receiving these warnings.
- On May 29, 2008, a fire again started in the mulch and spread to Building 8, destroying the apartment building where the plaintiffs resided.
- The plaintiffs lost their personal property, and some lost pets, in the fire.
- Plaintiffs all testified that they witnessed their building burning.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed separate actions in the Massachusetts Housing Court against Simpson Financing Limited Partnership for negligence and other claims.
- Defendants removed the actions to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on the basis of diversity of citizenship, where the cases were consolidated.
- The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Simpson, allowing only the claims for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment to proceed.
- A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on all counts.
- The jury awarded plaintiffs compensatory damages for property loss and awarded each plaintiff $450,000 for emotional distress.
- Defendant Simpson filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a remittitur or new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Massachusetts law require a plaintiff to present expert testimony to establish a landlord's duty of care and causation when the alleged negligence is the failure to remediate a known, non-technical fire hazard like flammable mulch placed against a building?
Opinions:
Majority - Saylor, District Judge.
No. Expert testimony is not required to establish a landlord's duty of care or causation when the landlord has knowledge of a unique and specific danger, and the reasonableness of the landlord's response is within the common knowledge of a jury. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the placement of mulch was a 'technical matter' requiring expert testimony. Unlike cases involving the complex installation of gas lines, the issue here was the landlord's duty to address a known risk—the mulch's proven propensity to catch fire next to the buildings. The jury could draw on common knowledge and experience to determine that a reasonable landlord, after multiple fires, would have moved the flammable mulch. Similarly, the jury could use its common knowledge of the nature of fire to conclude that the mulch's proximity to the building was a cause of the fire spreading, without needing an expert to testify on that point. The court also held that plaintiffs' own testimony about their physical symptoms was sufficient objective evidence to support an award for emotional distress damages, as Massachusetts law does not require corroborating expert medical testimony. However, the court found the jury's emotional distress award of $450,000 to each plaintiff was excessive and not supported by the evidence, as there were no medical expenses or hospitalizations, and ordered a new trial on damages unless plaintiffs agreed to a remittitur of $100,000 each.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the requirement for expert testimony in negligence cases is context-dependent and hinges on whether the subject matter is beyond the common knowledge of a layperson. By distinguishing a known, simple hazard from a complex technical matter, the court clarifies that a landlord cannot hide behind a purported need for an 'industry standard' when faced with an obvious and repeated danger. The case also provides a significant practical example of remittitur, where a court will reduce a jury's damages award it deems excessive or punitive, particularly for emotional distress claims not substantiated by medical evidence. This serves as a judicial check on jury awards to ensure they are compensatory and rationally based on the evidence presented at trial.
Unlock the full brief for Gardner v. Simpson Financing Ltd. Partnership