Veno v. City of Waltham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tout, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by reason of falling on a sidewalk situated in a highway which the defendant was bound to keep in repair.
Read the full summary
Tout, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by reason of falling on a sidewalk situated in a highway which the defendant was bound to keep in repair. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Braley, J., the plaintiff testified that she lived at No. 166 School Street, Waltham ; that on March 9, 1890, she fell upon the sidewalk on the south side of School Street, about fifty feet east of Spring Street, a place almost in front of her door, and near No. 168 on School Street, and broke her wrist; and that her fall was occasioned by an accumulation of rough ice on the sidewalk. She…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The notice was ambiguous in its statement of the place of injury, since there were two places on the sidewalk on the south side of School Street, near its junction with Spring Street and about fifty feet from Spring Street, one of which places was east of the junction, and the other west, and each of which was equally well described. Assuming that the notice was defective in the sense of the statute, it was nevertheless sufficient, if it was shown at the trial that there was no intention to mislead, and that the city was not in fact misled thereby. Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 19. St. 1888, c. 114, §…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bowes v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
3Cited by6 opinions
- Elwell v. Town of AtholMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Burke v. City of LynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Babish v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
- Miller v. Camp Bird, Ltd.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1909
- Hutcherson v. Amarillo St. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.