From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Fickett

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Nov 21, 2000
432 Mass. 1028 (Mass. 2000)

Opinion

SJC-08322.

November 21, 2000.

Negligence, Real estate broker, Duty to warn, Assumption of risk. Child. Dog.

William McElligott for the plaintiffs.

Clyde K. Hanyen for Remax New Horizons another.



A judge in the Superior Court entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants Remax New Horizons and Suanne DeFrancesco (defendants). The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendants did not breach any duty to the plaintiffs. Miller v. Fickett, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 654 (2000). We granted the plaintiffs' application for further appellate review.

For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Appeals Court, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Miller v. Fickett

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Nov 21, 2000
432 Mass. 1028 (Mass. 2000)
Case details for

Miller v. Fickett

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY MILLER another vs. DARRYL FICKETT others

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Nov 21, 2000

Citations

432 Mass. 1028 (Mass. 2000)
738 N.E.2d 352

Citing Cases

LaForce v. Dyckman

Once the adult is warned of the danger, the attendant risks are viewed from the adult's, rather than the…

Carcillo v. Nat'l Hockey League

Fed. Ins. Co. v. Bos. Water & Sewer Comm'n , 514 F. Supp. 2d 130, 134 (D. Mass. 2007) (citing De Martin v.…