Donnelly v. City of Fall River
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in Pleasant Street in the defendant city. Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in Pleasant Street in the defendant city. Answer, a general denial. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., it appeared that, within thirty days after receiving the injury, the plaintiff served a notice in writing upon the defendant, in which it was stated that on a day named “ he was thrown to the ground on Pleasant Street in Fall River, and severely injured in consequence of his foot being caught by a gas pipe marked 6 F. R. Gas Co.,’ which projected two inches above the sidewalk on said Pleasant Street.”…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
The notice to the city in this case was so like that of Larkin v. Boston, 128 Mass. 521, that it must necessarily be governed by the decision in that case. The statute requires the notice to state the time, place and cause of the injury. The notice in this case states the place to be “ the sidewalk on Pleasant Street.” Pleasant Street is stated in the bill of exceptions *116to be plie of the principal streets of the city, and is about two miles in length. To say that the defect, whether it be gas pipe, or excavation, or obstruction, is in Pleasant Street, is not, within the meaning of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Larkin v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
3Cited by6 opinions
- Tobin v. Inhabitants of BrimfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- English v. City of Ft. WorthCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Shea v. City of LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Rogers v. City & County of HonoluluHawaii Supreme Court · 1933
- Haggard v. City of Arkansas CitySupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.