Commonwealth v. Welansky
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case
Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383, 55 N.E.2d 902 (1944), is a criminal case about the Cocoanut Grove fire that illustrates principles of negligent homicide and reckless homicide in the case where there is not an affirmative act, but a failure to act (omission) when there is a duty of care.
Barnett Welansky was found guilty of wanton or reckless homicide in the Cocoanut Grove fire. Welansky maintained and operated the Cocoanut Grove nightclub, knew or should have known that the club fire escapes were inadequate and in violation of building safety codes, and while Welansky was offsite, the building caught fire and hundreds could not escape and died.
The court wrote:
To convict the defendant of manslaughter... It was enough to prove that death resulted from his wanton or reckless disregard of the safety of his patrons in the event of fire from any cause... Usually wanton or reckless conduct consists of an affirmative act... in disregard of probable harmful consequences to another. But whereas there is a duty of care for the safety of business visitors invited to premises which the defendant controls, wanton or reckless conduct may consist of intentional failure to take such care in disregard of the probable harmful consequences to them or of their right of care.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Commonwealth v. Welansky” as massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 15, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q28135160. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1944.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Commonwealth v. Welansky”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Commonwealth v. Welansky primary sources, Commonwealth v. Welansky archive and Commonwealth research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Commonwealth v. Welansky”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Commonwealth v. Welansky” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.