Legal Opinion
Gustat v. City of Everett
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided December 28, 1931PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.
The only questions presented on this report are whether a condition at the curbstone of Ferry Street in Everett constituted a defect in the way for which the city was liable under G. L. c. 84, §§ 1, 15; and whether lack of due care of the plaintiff contributed to his injury.
In 1900 the city set edgestones along a sidewalk on Ferry Street southeast of Rock Valley Avenue. The stones, in general, stood seven inches above the level of the carriage way of Ferry Street; but at a point not far from Rock Valley Avenue, for a space of ten feet, the curb was laid about four and one half inches above…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Anzalone v. Metropolitan District CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- George v. City of MaldenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Heaney v. Colonial Filling Stations, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Burke v. City of HaverhillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Howe v. City of MarlboroughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Johnson v. Town of OrangeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Abrahams v. ZismanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Valentino v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952
- Clohecy v. City of HaverhillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- White v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.