Not exact matches
The issues in this
application were whether the applicants were entitled to
summary judgment on their harassment claim and whether the court should
grant a permanent injunction pursuant to s. 3 (3) of the 1997 Protection Against Harassment Act.
Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no issue of fact related to the
application of the assumption of risk defense and therefore affirmed the trial court's
grant of
summary judgment.
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.
In affirming the lower court's
grant of
summary judgment in favor of Companies, the appellate court roundly rejected
application of HUD's «fourth factor» test, holding that the policy statement amounted to «non-binding advice about the agency's enforcement agenda.»