Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 186, § 19 (2026)

Notice to landlord of unsafe condition; tort actions for injuries resulting from uncorrected condition

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 19. A landlord or lessor of any real estate except an owner-occupied two- or three-family dwelling shall, within a reasonable time following receipt of a written notice from a tenant forwarded by registered or certified mail of an unsafe condition, not caused by the tenant, his invitee, or any one occupying through or under the tenant, exercise reasonable care to correct the unsafe condition described in said notice except that such notice need not be given for unsafe conditions in that portion of the premises not under control of the tenant. The tenant or any person rightfully on said premises injured as a result of the failure to correct said unsafe condition within a reasonable time shall have a right of action in tort against the landlord or lessor for damages. Any waiver of this provision in any lease or other rental agreement for residential use shall be void and unenforceable. The notice requirement of this section shall be satisfied by a notice from a board of health or other code enforcement agency to a landlord or lessor of residential premises not exempted by the provisions of this section of a violation of the state sanitary code or other applicable by-laws, ordinances, rules or regulations.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1977–2011 · leading case: Bishop v. TES Realty Trust, 942 N.E.2d 173 (Mass. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bishop v. TES Realty Trust, 942 N.E.2d 173 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 10× “3 The judge also concluded that the defendants owed no statutory duty *11 to repair an unsafe condition, because G. L. c. 186, § 19, did not apply to commercial leases.”

Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc. v. Yanofsky, 403 N.E.2d 370 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 3× “” We there noted that part of this evolution had been accomplished by statute, and cited among others G. L. c. 186, § 19 (St. 1972, c. 665), which provides in part as follows: “A landlord or lessor of any real estate [with exceptions not here material] shall, within a reasonable…”

Mahoney v. Baldwin, 543 N.E.2d 435 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 4× “The sole question raised by the appeal from the ensuing judgment is whether G. L. c. 186, § 19, is subject to the four-year limitation period extended to actions arising out of “violations of any law intended for the protection of consumers.”

Simon v. Solomon, 431 N.E.2d 556 (Mass. 1982). “Our analysis of the language and history of § 14, however, leads us to conclude that malicious intent is not necessary, and that the statute covers, at the least, reckless conduct such as Gem’s.”

Crowell v. McCaffrey, 386 N.E.2d 1256 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 186, § 19, and Restatement (Second) of Property, Landlord & Tenant § 17.”

Young v. Garwacki, 402 N.E.2d 1045 (Mass. 1980). “G. L. c. 186, § 19. In particular, a landlord should not be liable in negligence unless he knew or reasonably should have known of the defect 8 and had a reasonable opportunity to repair it.”

Humphrey v. Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (Mass. 2006). “Similarly, Humphrey does not contend that the landlord had any duty to repair defects under G. L. c. 186, § 19, and there is no evidence that the landlord received written notice of an unsafe condition as required by that statute.”

King v. G & M Realty Corp., 370 N.E.2d 413 (Mass. 1977). “An indication of legislative policy consistent with our ruling may be found in G. L. c. 186, § 19, inserted by St. 1972, c.”

Camerlin v. Marshall, 582 N.E.2d 539 (Mass. 1991). “” 4 The plaintiffs argument on appeal that G. L. c. 186, § 19, is somehow applicable to this case was not only not raised below, but the plaintiff actually informed the judge that the statute did not apply in this case.”

Agustynowicz v. Bradley, 519 N.E.2d 599 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988). “3 The application of a negligence standard in this case is consistent with G. L. c. 186, § 19, inserted by St. 1972, c.”

Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2009). “, G.L.c. 186, §19 (imposing reasonable care obligations on landlord’s duty to repair rented premises); Herman v.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.