WILLIAM MAHONEY, JR., & another [Note 1] vs. GEORGE W. BALDWIN & another, [Note 2] trustees.

PERRETTA, J. General Laws c. 186, Section 19, gives a tenant a right of action in tort against a landlord whose failure to correct an unsafe condition on the premises causes injury to the tenant. [Note 3]

Page 779

More than three years after the tenant William Mahoney fell on a stairway in the common area of his apartment house, he and his wife brought this action in the Superior Court. Concluding that the claim was time barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to tort actions, G. L. c. 260, Section 2A, the judge allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The sole question raised by the appeal from the ensuing judgment is whether G. L. c. 186, Section 19, is subject to the four-year limitation period extended to actions arising out of "violations of any law intended for the protection of consumers." G. L. c. 260, Section 5A, as appearing in St. 1983, c. 636, Section 29. We affirm the judgment.

By its express language, c. 260, Section 5A, does not restrict itself to causes of action arising out of violations of only those laws therein specified. [Note 4] Rules of statutory construction lead us to

Page 780

conclude, however, that the phrase "including but not limited to," which precedes the specification, limits the applicability of Section 5A to those types of statutes therein particularized. As stated in an analogous case, Haas v. Breton, 377 Mass. 591, 595 (1979): "Traditional methods of statutory construction reinforce our conclusion. `A general term in a statute or ordinance takes meaning from the setting in which it is employed. The literal meaning of a general term in an enactment must be limited so as not to include matters that, although within the letter of the enactment, do not fairly come within its spirit and intent.' Kenney v. Building Comm'r of Melrose, 315 Mass. 291, 295 (1943). Accord, Commonwealth v. Baker, 368 Mass. 58, 67-71 (1975); Koller v. Duggan, 346 Mass. 270, 273 (1963). `The problem is to determine what particulars that were not mentioned are sufficiently like those that were, in ways that are germane to the subject and purpose of the act, to be made subject to the act's provisions by force of the general reference.' 2A C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction Section 47.18, at 110 (4th ed. 1973)." We look to determine whether the plaintiffs' claims arising out of G. L. c. 186, Section 19, have the "same characteristics," Haas v. Breton, 377 Mass. at 596, as those laws specified in Section 5A, that is, "law[s] intended for the protection of consumers." G. L. c. 260, Section 5A.

"Consumer law, in a sense, becomes little more than the modern trend towards creating a more equitable balance for the consumer in the marketplace." Alperin & Chase, Consumer Rights and Remedies Section 1, at 2 (1979). See Commonwealth v. DeCotis, 366 Mass. 234, 238 (1974). As can be seen from the consumer legislation listed in Section 5A, those laws seek to remedy the imbalance which exists primarily because of a lack of parity in bargaining power between the consumer and the provider of consumer goods or services. [Note 5]

Page 781

These statutes reflect a legislative attempt to achieve parity between the consumer and the provider of goods and services by requiring that certain disclosures be made to consumers so that they can make informed purchasing decisions and by prohibiting certain acts or conduct which, even if not tortious, exacerbate or exploit consumer bargaining disadvantages. The harm sought to be prevented by these statutes is, primarily, economic harm.

There are many statutes that prohibit certain conduct or impose obligations. It does not follow, however, that these many laws are swept within the ambit of G. L. c. 260, Section 5A, simply by reason of the fact that the claim is made by a purchaser of goods or services. If that were so, the applicable limitation period would turn on who was bringing the claim rather than the nature of the claim. Such would be the case with G. L. c. 186, Section 19, which gives a cause of action not only to a tenant but also to "any person rightfully on said premises."

Although some of the purposes of consumer legislation might be incidentally or indirectly furthered by G. L. c. 186, Section 19, that law does not have the protection of consumers as its intended and primary goal. As discussed in Young v. Garwacki, 380 Mass. 162, 164-166 & n.3, 170-171 (1980), the statute reforms the common law by establishing a standard of care owed by landlords in repairing their premises irrespective of the status of the injured person (tenant, licensee, invitee). See also Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Yanofsky, 380 Mass. 326, 330-331 (1980). Its obvious purpose is to protect all persons against the risk of physical injury. See Young v. Garwacki, 380 Mass. at 167, quoting from Mounsey v. Ellard, 363 Mass. 693, 707 (1973).

Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs were tenants, purchasers of residential space, when they sustained their injuries,

Page 782

their claims do not arise out of a violation of a "law intended for the protection of consumers." G. L. c. 260, Section 5A. Their action is, therefore, time-barred under G. L. c. 260, Section 2A.

Judgment affirmed.