Buzzell v. R. H. White Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tobt for personal injuries received as the plaintiff was passing through a revolving door in leaving a department store of the defendant in Boston.
Read the full summary
Tobt for personal injuries received as the plaintiff was passing through a revolving door in leaving a department store of the defendant in Boston. Writ dated April 24, 1913. In the Superior Court the case was tried before White, J., upon an agreed statement of facts substantially as follows: When the plaintiff started to leave through the revolving door, she waited until all the people ahead of her had passed through, then entered the door and started to go through, when suddenly the door increased its speed as if it had been pushed by some one and began to whirl around rapidly, taking her…
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
This case is in the main governed by Smith v. Johnson, 219 Mass. 142. The door in question here was a revolving door and not a swinging door as was the door in Smith v. Johnson. Both kinds of doors are in common use, and in that respect the cases are alike. There is no more reason for an attendant in case of a revolving door than there was in case of the swinging doors in question in .Smith v. Johnson.
The fact that some revolving doors in use have a "governing device to control the speed of the door and that the door here in question did not have it or any other device to control its speed *132was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Wolfe v. New Bedford Cordage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
3Cited by29 opinions
- Shebester v. Triple Crown InsurersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Kelley v. Jordan Marsh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Eyerly v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1935
- Sterns v. Highland Hotel Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Rosenberg v. HartmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.