Severy v. Nickerson

• Decision Date: 06 May 1876
• Citation: 120 Mass. 306
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: John T. Severy v. Frederick Nickerson & others

120 Mass. 306

John T. Severy v. Frederick Nickerson & others

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

May 6, 1876

Suffolk. Tort for an injury sustained by the plaintiff on board the defendants' vessel, by a fall through a hatchway left open and without proper guards or barriers. The material facts, as they appeared at the trial in this court before Ames, J., were as follows:

The plaintiff was employed by his son, at the time in the employ of the Boston Ice Company, by whom the vessel was loaded, to assist in loading a quantity of ice on board the vessel. At an early hour of the day, before sunrise, and while it was quite dark, the plaintiff and his son went with a wagon load of ice to the wharf where the vessel lay, and slid the ice on board, upon the middle deck, down some planks from the wharf through a port-hole in the vessel's side, which they opened, the plaintiff hauling the ice upon the slide and his son receiving it on board. The son, after the ice was all on board, went forward to the ice-chest; and the plaintiff after remaining a short time on the wharf, also went on board entering the vessel upon the middle deck by the port-hole through which the ice was put on board. It was quite dark there, and the upper hatch was closed. After standing a short time, he concluded to go and see where the ice-chest was, and for that purpose walked forward, supposing it to be perfectly safe and seeing no danger, when he fell through the hatchways on the middle deck and the deck beneath, into the hold, breaking his leg and sustaining other injuries. The plaintiff had never been on board the vessel before, and was not directed or called by his son to go on board or to go forward to the ice-chest. The only caution that his son gave him was to be careful as he came down the slide. When the plaintiff and his son arrived at the vessel, the hatches of the upper deck were on, and the heavy doors of the port-holes were closed.

Upon this evidence the judge ruled as matter of law that the action could not be maintained, directed a verdict for the defendants, and reported the case for the consideration of the full court. If the ruling was incorrect, the verdict was to be set aside and the case stand for trial; otherwise, judgment on the verdict.

Judgment on the verdict.

G. A. Somerby & F. F. Heard, for the plaintiff.

C. T. Russell, Jr., (C. T. Russell with him,) for the defendants.

Devens, J. Ames Morton, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Devens, J.

The distinction which exists between the obligation which is due by the owner of premises to a mere licensee, who enters thereon, without any enticement or inducement, and to one...