# Stamboulis v. Stamboulis

> Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · March 7, 1988 · 401 Mass. 762

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540791

## Case

- **Full name:** Fevronia Stamboulis & Another vs. Marianna Stamboulis
- **Court:** Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- **Decided:** March 7, 1988
- **Citations:** 401 Mass. 762; 519 N.E.2d 1299
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hennessey
- **Judges:** Hennessey, Wilkins, Liacos, Abrams, Nolan, Lynch, O'Connor
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9540791

## Opinion text

*766 Hennessey, C.J.
(concurring). I agree with the result reached by Justices Wilkins, Liacos, and Abrams. I also agree with their reasoning in all but one respect, as follows. The opinion lists and briefly describes several cases in which we have rejected the status of a party to the tort (e.g., a spouse, a charity, a government entity) as a controlling element in determining liability for negligence. Also listed is Schofield v. Merrill, 386 Mass. 244 (1982), in which a majority of this court concluded that an adult trespasser, not known to be in peril, was barred from recovering in a negligence claim against the landowner. The implication is that the result in Schofield is inconsistent (it is cited as “contra”) with the “status” cases. Not so. I suppose that in a dictionary sense we are indicating a status when we speak of a trespasser. More significantly, we are referring to conduct. “Trespasser” is a label for a person who has unlawfully entered the land of another. I joined a majority of this court in Schofield in determining that such a wrongdoer, whether burglar or mere interloper, can prevail only upon a showing of wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct of the defendant landowner. I suggest that the Schofield result is sound policy, and also is consistent with the reasoning that the status of a party should not be a controlling element in determining liability for negligence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540791. Public record. Not legal advice.