Legal Opinion

Hillis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 25, 1933PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C. J.

This is an action of tort in which the plaintiff seeks to recover compensation for personal injuries received by her at about 9:15 on a March evening in the store of the defendant where she was a customer. The trial judge found that the plaintiff was injured while in the exercise of due care through the defective condition of the stairway, which was known to the defendant or had existed long enough so that the defendant by the exercise of reasonable care might have known that the defect existed. Substantial damages in favor of the plaintiff were assessed.

The plaintiff testified that as she…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Judson v. American Railway Express Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  2. Serota v. SalmansohnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  3. Solomon v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  4. Loudon v. BeaulieuMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Sneckner v. FeingoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  2. Heina v. Broadway Fruit Market, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  3. Keenan v. E. M. Loew's, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  4. Pastrick v. S. S. Kresge Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  5. Ventromile v. Malden Electric Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API