McDougall v. City of Boston
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tout for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff on January 29, 1881, by a defect in Porter Street in the defendant city. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the jury returned a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtColbubn, J.
The notice given by the plaintiff in this case, which was a condition precedent to the right to maintain her action, Gay v. Cambridge, 128 Mass. 387, was given within thirty days of her injury, and apparently stated with sufficient accuracy the time, place, and cause of her injury, as required by the St. of 1877, c. 234. She states in her notice that the cause of her injury “was an iron grating, in said sidewalk, at said place, which was defective and out of repair, and projected above the level of said sidewalk two inches or more, over the projecting part of which the plaintiff tripped and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gay v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Miles v. City of LynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bowes v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Lord v. Lowell Institution for SavingsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Naze v. Inhabitants of HudsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Chisholm v. Manhattan Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- City of Denver v. BarronColorado Court of Appeals · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.