from the right to control land, even where the person held to such a duty does not own the land in question.” Davis v. Westwood Group, 420 Mass. 739, 744-745 (1995), citing Underhill v. Shactman, 337 Mass. 730, 733 (1958). That general principle does not apply here for two reasons. First, the record contains no evidence concerning the existence of any legal right of control possessed by the defen 2 ed.) (‘“State highways shall be maintained and kept in good repair and condition by the department [of highways] at the expense of the commonwealth”). Our conclusion also comports with the Commonwealth’s ‘“elaborate and comprehensive statutory system” establishing municipal liability for injuries resulting from defects in public ways. Huff v. Holyoke, 386 Mass. 582, 585 (1982). See ibid. (<HOLDING>); G. L. c. 84, §§ 1, 15. See also DiNitto v.
holding that absent explicit statutory authority a municipality cannot be held liable for punitive damages holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing holding that language of contract did not limit plaintiffs recovery to liquidated damages holding that by framing her complaint in terms of commonlaw nuisance plaintiff could not avoid statutory limit on recovery of damages against municipality holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages