Daily v. City of Worcester
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by an alleged defect in Burt Street, in the defendant city. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows: The defect complained of was the want of a sufficient railing, to prevent travellers from passing from said way.
Read the full summary
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by an alleged defect in Burt Street, in the defendant city. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows: The defect complained of was the want of a sufficient railing, to prevent travellers from passing from said way. The way in question was a private way, which had for a long time been so used as to make the city liable for damages arising from defects therein, in the same manner as if it had been duly laid out and established. It extended from…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Upon the facts proved at the trial and found by the jury, the case is governed by Puffer v. Orange, 122 Mass. 389, and cases there cited. Exceptions overruled.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Puffer v. Inhabitants of OrangeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
3Cited by6 opinions
- City of Beaumont v. KaneCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930
- Barnes v. Inhabitants of ChicopeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- City of Birmingham v. CoxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Wallace v. Wilmington & N. R.Superior Court of Delaware · 1889
- Hudson v. Inhabitants of MarlboroughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.