Grogan v. City of Worcester
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in Lamartine Street in the defendant city. Trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that, on December 17, 1881, he gave the defendant the following written notice: “ You are hereby notified that James Grogan of said Worcester, at or about 6h. 30m.
Read the full summary
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in Lamartine Street in the defendant city. Trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that, on December 17, 1881, he gave the defendant the following written notice: “ You are hereby notified that James Grogan of said Worcester, at or about 6h. 30m. P. M. on the twenty-first day of November, A. D. 1881, was travelling on foot on Lamartine Street in said Worcester, and upon that part of said street next easterly of…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The defendant argues that the cause of the injury to the plaintiff was the drain across the sidewalk which made him stumble; that the want of a fence, which would have prevented his falling into the sewer, was merely an aggravation of the damage ensuing upon an already accomplished wrong; and therefore that the notice stating the lack of railing as the cause was bad. But the cause of which the statute requires notice to be given to the city is that one among the conditions of the effect for which the city is answerable. It is admitted that the notice was good, unless the drain was a defect.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Spillane v. City of FitchburgMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Albert M. Buskey v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Learned v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1897