# Conners v. Northeast Hospital Corp.

> Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · May 29, 2003 · 439 Mass. 469

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6452717

## Case

- **Full name:** Janet Conners v. Northeast Hospital Corporation & others
- **Court:** Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- **Decided:** May 29, 2003
- **Citations:** 439 Mass. 469; 789 N.E.2d 129; 2003 Mass. LEXIS 437
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ireland
- **Judges:** Ireland, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6452717

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding, even in the absence of privity, the following statement of law legally adequate: “each of the subcontractors had a duty to use reasonable care in the performance of his duties and an obligation to perform the duties in a diligent and workmanlike manner”
- holding that snow removal in a hospital's parking lot directly accomplished the subject charitable purpose
- holding that clearing snow so that the public may seek medical services is a charitable purpose

## Opinion text

Ireland, J.
(concurring). I agree that our result in this case is mandated by G. L. c. 231, § 85K, but as I have written before, I am concerned when statutes are used to shield responsible parties from liability. See Barnett v. Lynn, 433 Mass. 662, 667-668 (2001) (Ireland, J., concurring); Brum v. Dartmouth, 428 Mass. 684, 708 (1999) (Ireland, J., concurring). I disagree, however, with the court’s contention that § 85K fairly “balances” the interests of the charitable organization against those of the injured citizen. Ante at 473. The statute is not only monetarily outdated, but also fails to recognize the evolving roles of traditionally charitable institutions. See Keene v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., ante 223, 246-247 (2003) (Ireland, J., dissenting) (majority of jurisdictions recognize abrogation of liability in certain fields no longer makes sense). I call on the Legislature to address this problem.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6452717. Public record. Not legal advice.