|
Student Publications Homepage
ARTICLE CONTENTS
[Pages 383-464]
TOP OF ARTICLE
Introduction
I. The Evolution of Public Tort Liability in Massachusetts, Prior to Section 10(j)
A. The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act: Abrogating Sovereign Immunity
B. Limiting Liability: The MTCA’s Exceptions
C. Dinsky v. Town of Framingham and the Public Duty Rule: Further Limiting the Liability of Public Employers
D. The Statutory Intent and Special Relationship Exceptions: Limiting the Public Duty Rule
E. Further Eroding the Reach of the Public Duty Rule: Liability Imposed for Actively Creating the Risk
F. Cyran v. Town of Ware: Special Exceptions Versus Creation of the Risk
G. The Court Retreats: Jean W. v. Commonwealth and the Abrogation of the Public Duty Rule
H. The 1993 Amendments to the MTCA: Codifying the Public Duty Rule
II. The Application of the Statutory Public Duty Rule, Section 10(j)
III. Brum v. Town of Dartmouth: Chronicling an Interpretive Quagmire
A. The Lower Courts’ Treatment
B. The Supreme Judicial Court’s Treatment
IV. Remedying Section 10(j)’s Interpretive Quagmire and Curing Its Harsh Results
A. Brum II’s Reverberations
B. Defining the Plain Language of Section 10(j)
C. Application of Section 10(j)’s Plain Language to Public Duty Jurisprudence: The Three-Step Analysis
D. The Harsh Law of Section 10(j)
E. The Grenade with a Sign: A Suggested Exception to § 10(j)
Conclusion
|
