In the Spotlight: Imposition of Heightened Duty on Commercial Landlords for Repairs

For decades, the doctrine of caveat emptor provided the basis for the common law rule that a landlord has no obligation to make repairs (based upon the reasoning that the tenant leased the premises on an “as-is” basis and assumed all of the risks associated with that “as-is” condition). Over time, jurisdictions gradually modified this common law approach, most notably in the context of residential leasing where jurisdictions have afforded greater protection for residential tenants by imposing an implied warranty of habitability in such leases. Yet, in the context of commercial leasing, many jurisdictions were reluctant to modify the common law rule. In Massachusetts, for example, the Legislature enacted G.L. c. 186 ' 15, which provided greater protections to residential tenants. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in continuing the protections for residential tenants, subsequently imposed a duty to exercise reasonable care to remedy defects on the leased premises. See Young v. Garwacki, 380 Mass. 162 (1980). While several provisions of G.L. c. 186 were expressly limited to residential tenancies, others were silent on their application, and through the course of practice, thought not to apply to commercial leases. In fact, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, after recognizing the inarguable differences between residential and commercial leases and the impracticality of applying residential protections in commercial transactions, refused to apply the Young ruling to commercial landlords. Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006). In the absence of a ruling to the contrary, practitioners believed that the common law rule still applied to commercial leases.