Howe v. City of Lowell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been caused by a defect in a highway which the defendants were bound to keep in repair. At the Trial in the superior court, before Wilkinson, J., it appeared that the injury was caused by the defect, and that the defect had not existed more than thirteen hours at the time of the accident.
Read the full summary
Tort to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been caused by a defect in a highway which the defendants were bound to keep in repair. At the Trial in the superior court, before Wilkinson, J., it appeared that the injury was caused by the defect, and that the defect had not existed more than thirteen hours at the time of the accident. The defendants asked the judge to instruct the jury, that the plaintiff must satisfy the jury by a reasonable preponderance of evidence that the city had actual notice of the defect; that to constitute reasonable notice it must have been brought…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It is only necessary that the proper officers did actually know of the existence of the defect, or with proper vigilance and care might have known it. Donaldson v. Boston 16 Gray, 508. This has been the uniform construction of the statute throughout the Commonwealth, so far as the court are informed. Exceptions overruled,.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Scoville v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1895
- Chase v. City of LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Harriman v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Welsh v. Inhabitants of AmesburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Board of Chosen Freeholders v. HoughSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.