It must be stated here that the DCE initially
denied having any
knowledge of such act but had to subsequently accept having
knowledge of that in a
meeting held in his house that comprised the contractor and the police command.
In
denying summary judgment to GE and granting summary judgment to Boston Edison, the Court found that: (1) while the construction work performed by GE
met the definition
of an improvement to real property for purposes
of the statute
of repose, public policy considerations necessitated an exception to the application
of the statute in cases involving alleged asbestos - related disease; (2) the installation
of asbestos insulation was not an abnormally dangerous activity; (3) Boston Edison did not exercise sufficient control over the work at issue to be held negligent; and (4) a premises owner, such as Boston Edison, has no duty to warn where the subcontractor has
knowledge of the hazard which is equal to or greater than that
of the premises owner.