Logan v. City of New Bedford
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by reason of the alleged want of a railing at the side of a highway in the defendant city. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bishop, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
Cities and towns are required to provide ways that shall be reasonably safe and convenient for travellers. They are not bound to fence them so as to prevent travellers from straying outside of them, and they are not obliged to mark their limits. Stone v. Attleborough, 140 Mass. 328. Damon v. Boston, 149 Mass. 147. They are required to erect suitable barriers where there are dangerous places in such proximity to the highway as to render barriers necessary in order to make the way reasonably safe and convenient. But a railing or barrier is not to be erected because a traveller may meet with an…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Damon v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Marshall V. Inhabitants of IpswichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Stone v. Inhabitants of AttleboroughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Richardson v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bohl v. City of Dell RapidsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
- Chance v. City of St. JosephMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- Scannal v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Tisdale v. Inhabitants of BridgewaterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Seeton v. DunbartonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.