McDougall v. City of Salem
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort to recover for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff through the defendants’ negligence in improperly maintaining the Essex Bridge, leading from Salem to Beverly.
Read the full summary
Tort to recover for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff through the defendants’ negligence in improperly maintaining the Essex Bridge, leading from Salem to Beverly. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., the plaintiff, in opening his case, stated that he should prove the following facts: By the St. of 1787, c. 27, certain persons were incorporated for the purpose of building the Essex Bridge, and were required to keep in the bridge a draw at least thirty feet wide, and to deliver up the bridge to the Commonwealth at the end of seventy years, during which time they…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
By the action of the sounty commissioners of Essex, under the St. of 1868, e. 309, the bridge in question became a highway. The city of Salem was under no obligation to keep it in repair except such as was created by statute. They were bound by the Gen. Sts. c. 44, § 1, to keep it in such repair that it would be safe and convenient for travellers. Their liability to pay damages was created by § 22. But the statute made them liable to travellers only. Stickney v. Salem, 3 Allen, 374. Blodgett v. Boston, 8 Allen, 237. The plaintiff was not a traveller on the highway. The wings of the draw were…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Oliver v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by3 opinions
- Butterfield v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Naumburg v. City of MilwaukeeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1906
- Ripley v. Boards of Chosen FreeholdersSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1878