Simon v. Solomon
385 Mass. 91, 1982 Mass. LEXIS 1252, 431 N.E.2d 556 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's reckless and prolonged failure to remedy severe, unsanitary housing conditions that it knows or should know are likely to cause emotional harm can constitute extreme and outrageous conduct, making the landlord liable for a tenant's resulting severe emotional distress.
Facts:
- From 1973 to 1977, Celeste Solomon and her two sons rented a basement apartment managed by Gem Realty Company (Gem).
- During her tenancy, Solomon's apartment flooded with water and sewage approximately thirty times, typically occurring between midnight and 2 a.m.
- Each time a flood occurred, Solomon would notify Gem, which would send a cleanup crew to pump the water out.
- Gem never took permanent action to stop the flooding, despite evidence suggesting it was aware of a porous wall between Solomon's apartment and an adjoining basement that was the source of the water.
- As a result of the recurrent flooding, Solomon did not suffer physical bodily injury but experienced severe emotional distress, including depression and withdrawal, which was confirmed by psychiatric experts.
Procedural Posture:
- Gem Realty Company initiated summary process proceedings in the Housing Court Department to evict Celeste Solomon for nonpayment of rent.
- Solomon filed counterclaims against Gem for (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial judge granted summary judgment for Gem on the negligence count.
- The remaining three counts were tried before a jury, which returned verdicts for Solomon on all counts, awarding her $1,000 for breach of warranty, $10,000 for breach of quiet enjoyment, and $35,000 for reckless infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial judge subsequently awarded Solomon over $40,000 in attorneys' fees.
- Gem appealed the judgments on the jury verdicts and the fee award; Solomon cross-appealed the summary judgment on her negligence claim.
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 a landlord's repeated failure to remedy severe and persistent sewage flooding in a tenant's apartment, despite numerous complaints, constitute reckless infliction of emotional distress for which the tenant may recover damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Hennessey, C.J.
Yes. A landlord's repetitious pattern of indifference to severe and unsanitary conditions, such as recurrent sewage flooding, constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for reckless infliction of emotional distress. The court applied the four-part test from Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., concluding that Gem's conduct met the standard for recklessness because it knew or should have known that its failure to permanently fix the flooding was likely to cause severe emotional harm. Gem had a duty under the warranty of habitability and the State Sanitary Code to provide a watertight apartment, and its long-term failure to do so was an outrageous omission. The court also held that reckless conduct satisfies the standard for liability under the quiet enjoyment statute (G. L. c. 186, § 14). However, the court vacated the separate $10,000 damage award for breach of quiet enjoyment because it was duplicative of the damages awarded for breach of warranty (lost rental value) and reckless infliction of emotional distress (personal injury).
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the tort of reckless infliction of emotional distress within the landlord-tenant relationship, establishing that a landlord's liability can arise from a pattern of omissions or indifference, not merely affirmative acts. It broadens tenant remedies by confirming that severe emotional distress is a cognizable injury resulting from uninhabitable conditions. The case also provides important statutory interpretation, holding that reckless conduct meets the culpability requirement for breach of quiet enjoyment under G. L. c. 186, § 14, and that emotional harm is a recoverable 'consequential damage' under that statute. Finally, it reinforces the legal principle against duplicative damage awards, instructing courts to ensure a plaintiff is not compensated twice for the same harm under different legal theories.
