Snow v. Inhabitants of Provincetown

Decision Date07 September 1876
Citation120 Mass. 580
PartiesAnna Y. Snow v. Inhabitants of Provincetown
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Barnstable. Tort for an injury occasioned by a defect in a highway in defendant town.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the evidence tended to show that the injury was received on High Street, a short street running at right angles with Commercial Street, and therefrom in a northwesterly direction; that the town was bound to keep the way in repair; that the alleged defect was the absence of a railing on the northerly side of the street, at a point about fifty-five feet from Commercial Street, at which point there was a bulkhead or embankment just outside of the limits of the street, extending from the side of the street to the depth of about four feet, and almost straight up and down, and without protection by a railing or fence; that at the bottom of the embankment was a yard, constituting a part of the premises of one Winslow; that the embankment was composed of sod turned bottom up, and that the body of the street was laid out in sods of the same kind; that the street at the point of the embankment was fourteen feet and seven inches wide; that the side opposite to the side where the accident occurred was made of earth banked up to the height of three feet above the street; and that on this embankment rested a wooden fence, two to three feet high.

The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff, who was nearly nineteen years old at the time of the accident, lived upon High Street, about three minutes' walk from the place of the accident, and had lived there all her life; that she had at different times visited the Winslow house, and had passed by the embankment two or three times daily for many years; that she had frequently noticed the embankment and the Winslow yard, and the absence of a fence or railing, and that there had been no fence or railing there for years.

The plaintiff testified that about ten in the forenoon of June 27, 1874, she turned from Commercial Street into High Street, intending to pass up the street to her home, and by the place where the accident occurred; that she then had in her right hand a pail with milk, and in her left hand two small bundles of cloth; that, as she turned into High Street, she saw standing almost directly across the street, and at the point of the embankment, a horse harnessed to a two-wheel tip cart; that the horse was heading a little up High Street, and the upper wheel of the cart nearest and very near to the edge of the embankment; that she continued walking up the street and on the same side as the embankment; that when she had nearly reached the cart, she thought there was about the space of a foot between the tail of the cart and the edge of the embankment; that the teamster started the horse to give her room to go by, as she supposed; that she then thought there was room enough for her to pass safely; that it appeared to her that there was plenty of room to pass, and that she kept right on, and that, as she was passing the cart, it started and commenced backing towards her, and, fearing it would strike her, she stepped aside to her right and off the embankment and fell into the yard.

Upon cross-examination, she stated that she stepped aside voluntarily to avoid the cart, and did not then think or notice where she was about to step, nor think of the embankment, nor the fact that she was at the edge of the same; that the space between the cart and where she fell might not be more than a foot, leaving the weeds out which grew out of the edge of the embankment; that she had noticed that the weeds grew out before; that at the time she stepped aside she was watching the cart; that the cart did not strike her; that why she knew it did not was because there was no bruise upon her left side; that both before reaching the cart and up to the time of her fall there was no obstacle to prevent her seeing the place from the time she left Commercial Street; that she did not know where she looked, although she knew the embankment was there; that she was thinking of how she was going to get by, was thinking of getting by; that she did not think there was any difficulty; thought there was room enough. "I think it did occur to me that I must be careful or I should fall;" that before the driver started the cart, she thought she could not get by; that when she was behind the cart she thought it started; that she knew that the driver was unloading coal at the embankment for Winslow, and that, when he took his horse by the bits, he had got through unloading. In answer to the question, why she did not take hold of the cart and prevent her fall, she answered that she could not, having both her hands full. "I could n't try; if I had had my hands free, I don't think I could have grasped the tail of the cart and saved myself from falling;" also that she did not speak to the driver, nor he to her; that the driver, as she was about attempting to pass, was at the head of the horse with his hand on the bit.

The plaintiff called one Gifford, who then resided upon the same side of High Street as the embankment, who testified that he left his house to come down High Street, and passed down until he came to the tail of the cart; that he found the upper wheel plumb with the edge of the embankment, and that it was impossible for him to get by there; that he then crossed the street, crept under the horse's neck upon the other side, and was proceeding down to, and had got to Commercial Street, when he met the plaintiff turning the corner; that he stopped at the foot of High Street, and turned around from curiosity to see how the plaintiff would get by the horse and cart; that he thought the teamster was trying to make room for her; that, as she approached, the driver took the horse's head and drew him a little; that the cart must have moved, though he could not say it did; that she stopped or hesitated within two or three feet of the tail of the cart; that then the cart commenced to back and was backing towards the edge of the embankment, and that while it was backing she began to walk ahead, and was behind the cart while it was backing, and that she then disappeared behind the embankment; that he was anxious about her when she was about to pass between the cart and the embankment, and before she had actually reached it, for the reason that the cart was then backing; that the horse could not stand still where he was; that it occurred to him that she had lost the favorable time for passing. He also added upon cross-examination, "I think the driver had started up the horse a little, so that his nose was over a low fence. I know it must have been, but I don't recollect the position of the horse's head; then the horse and team commenced to back slowly before she had actually started. It is my impression, she had hesitated a while before starting."

The teamster was called by the defendant, and testified that he had been unloading his cart of coal by shovelling from one side around the tail of the cart, there not being room sufficient to stand behind the cart; that he saw the plaintiff coming from Commercial Street; that he had got through delivering the coal by shovelling down the embankment; when he saw her he went to his horse's head, took hold of the bits and was proceeding to turn the head of the horse down the street to go to his store on Commercial Street, and was doing so and thus backing his horse, at which time the plaintiff was within a foot or two of the cart and on the side nearest Commercial Street; that he then heard a cry and saw the plaintiff upon the ground in the yard; that "the horse had moved his forward feet and given a half step. Just as soon as he moved I heard the noise. I did not see her go off." There was evidence tending to show that the cart and horse were in length fifteen feet, seven inches.

The defendant contended that the place of the fall was dangerous that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Hainlin v. Budge
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1908
    ... ... N.W. 155, 42 Am. Rep. 470, wherein the opinion was rendered ... by Mr. Justice Cooley; Snow v. Provincetown, 120 ... Mass. 580; City of Bloomington v. Perdue, 99 Ill ... 329; Fox v ... ...
  • Heether v. City of Huntsville
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • November 5, 1906
    ... ... is no evidence of such accumulation of ice and snow as would ... amount to an obstruction. The power and duty of this court to ... reverse the ... Sedalia, 77 Mo ... 446; Barton v. Springfield, 110 Mass. 131; Snow ... v. Provincetown, 120 Mass. 580. Buesching v. Gas ... Light Co., 73 Mo. 232; Smith v. St. Joseph, 45 ... Mo. 449; ... ...
  • Taylor v. Carew Manuf'g Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1887
    ...the same, are not conclusive of want of due care. Mahoney v. Metropolitan R.R., 104 Mass. 73;Dewire v. Bailey, 131 Mass. 171;Snow v. Provincetown, 120 Mass. 580;Gilbert v. Boston, 139 Mass. 313. That he proceeded in the dark is not conclusive against him. Fox v. Sackett, 10 Allen, 535. Unde......
  • Buesching v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1880
    ...a person lawfully using the way and using ordinary caution, accidentally slipping, might fall into it.” To the same effect are Snow v. Provincetown 120 Mass. 580; Bush v. Johnson 23 Pa. St. 209, and Temperance Hall Asso. v. Giles,33 N. J. L. 260. In the case last cited, it was held that in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT