Legal Opinion

Feinstein v. Beers

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided January 8, 2004No. 01-P-1635PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

“Whether a defendant has a duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances is a question of law for the court, to be determined by reference to existing social values and customs and appropriate social policy.” O’Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 203 (2000). “As a general rule, a landowner does not owe a duty to take affirmative steps to protect against dangerous or unlawful acts of third persons.” Luoni v. Berube, 431 Mass. 729, 731 (2000). See Dhimos v. Cormier, 400 Mass. 504, 506-507 (1987); Anthony H. v. John G., 415 Mass. 196, 200 (1993).

This is not a case where entry was made through…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Mullins v. Pine Manor CollegeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  2. O'Sullivan v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
  3. Whittaker v. SaracenoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
  4. Luoni v. BerubeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
  5. LeBlanc v. Atlantic Building & Supply Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Boike v. Brinker Massachusetts Corp.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2005
  2. Hansbury v. National Grid (USA), Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API