Johnson v. Chateau De Ville, Inc.

Linda Anne Johnson v. Chateau De Ville, Inc.

Johnson v. Chateau De Ville, Inc., 479 N.E.2d 698 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985)

Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided: June 13, 1985
Citations: 479 N.E.2d 69820 Mass. App. Ct. 9331985 Mass. App. LEXIS 1826

Cited by 4 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The defendant claims the judgment was correct because the defendant owes no duty of care to the plaintiff “with respect to traffic conditions” on a public highway. The defendant’s argument misses the point. While the defendant has no duty as to traffic conditions on the highway, there may, in the circumstances, be a duty to design the entrance in such a way as to take those conditions into account.

The defendant also argues that the plaintiff has presented no fact to the motion judge showing the existence of a defective condition for which the defendant is responsible. Again, the defendant misconceives the issue. As the moving party, it has not met its burden of “affirmatively demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of fact on every relevant issue raised by the pleadings [or in the answers to interrogatories]. This is so even though *934 . . . [it] would have no burden if the case were to go to trial.” Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, 386 Mass. 367, 371 (1982), quoting from Mack v. Cape Elizabeth Sch. Bd., 553 F.2d 720, 722 (1st Cir. 1977). Berrios v. Perchik, ante, 930 (1985). See also Appleby v. Daily Hampshire Gazette, 395 Mass. 32, 37 (1985), and Foley v. Matulewicz, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 1004, 1005 (1984), as to the scope of summary judgment in a negligence action.

Robert E. Fox for the plaintiff. James E. Grumbach, D. Alice Olsen & Robert M. Raciti for the defendant.

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

The case was submitted on briefs.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(while the duty of care does not extend to traffic conditions on a public highway, there may in the circumstances be a duty to design a tavern’s entrance in such a way as to take those conditions into account)

Christopher v. Father's Huddle Café, Inc., 782 N.E.2d 517 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts4

Relies on it most ⓘ

Polak v. Whitney487 N.E.2d 213 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985)
Christopher v. Father's Huddle Café, Inc.782 N.E.2d 517 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)
Tryon v. City of Lowell565 N.E.2d 456 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991)
Morgan v. Evans657 N.E.2d 764 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995)

Most recent

Christopher v. Father's Huddle Café, Inc.782 N.E.2d 517 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)
Morgan v. Evans657 N.E.2d 764 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995)
Tryon v. City of Lowell565 N.E.2d 456 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991)
Polak v. Whitney487 N.E.2d 213 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, 436 N.E.2d 139 (Mass. 1982)	324
	Mack v. Cape Elizabeth Sch. Bd., 553 F.2d 720 (1st Cir. 1977)	73
	Foley v. Matulewicz, 459 N.E.2d 1262 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984)	48
	Appleby v. Daily Hampshire Gazette, 478 N.E.2d 721 (Mass. 1985)	46

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list