Cleveland v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for personal injuries caused by the plaintiff falling into an excavation in South Street in that part of Boston called Roslindale owing to the excavation not being properly guarded, it being alleged that the defendant had assumed the responsibility of keeping it guarded. Writ dated January 16, 1909. In the Superior Court the case was tried before Brown, J. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Tort for personal injuries caused by the plaintiff falling into an excavation in South Street in that part of Boston called Roslindale owing to the excavation not being properly guarded, it being alleged that the defendant had assumed the responsibility of keeping it guarded. Writ dated January 16, 1909. In the Superior Court the case was tried before Brown, J. The material facts are stated in the opinion. At the close of the evidence the presiding judge ordered a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtDeCourcy, J.
The plaintiff’s due care is conceded. Upon all the evidence the negligence of the defendant was also a question for the jury. Primarily it was under no obligation to guard this trench in the street. Leary v. Boston Elevated Railway, 180 Mass. 203. But if the railway company entered into an arrangement with the city, or with the contractor who was responsible to the city, to guard the trench, the duty of protecting travellers from the danger of an unguarded trench became the defendant’s business. Phinney v. Boston Elevated Railway, 201 Mass. 286.
The trench extended from the side of the street…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boucher v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Leary v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Phinney v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Grier v. GuarinoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913