Hunt v. Salem

• Decision Date: 10 November 1876
• Citation: 121 Mass. 294
• Parties: John F. Hunt v. City of Salem
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

121 Mass. 294

John F. Hunt v. City of Salem

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 10, 1876

Essex. Tort for personal injuries occasioned by an alleged defect in a way in Salem called Front Street, which the defendant was bound to keep in repair. Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

It appeared in evidence that there was at the time of the accident a semi-circular aperture or cellar way in the sidewalk of said street, about four and a half feet long and two feet wide at the widest part, which was covered by a grating. This grating was formed by iron bars running at right angles with the sidewalk, and distant from each other in some cases three and in others three and a half inches and over these were placed three iron bars running parallel with the course of the sidewalk. The curved side of the cellar way was turned towards the street, and the straight side was coincident with the line of the building over the cellar. Of the bars last named the one nearest the building was about nine inches distant therefrom.

The plaintiff, who was a boy about eight years old at the time of the accident, which occurred on February 17, 1875, testified that on that day he had been sent to carry dinner to his father, who was at work on Front Street, and, upon his return home, after seeing his father, as he was going down upon the right hand of Front Street, which was the side nearest his home, his attention was attracted by some toys in a window in a shop upon the opposite side of the street, which window was directly above the grating referred to, and he immediately crossed the street and stood in front of the window looking at the toys for some four or five minutes, and, in turning to come away, his foot slipped into the grating between the innermost cross bar and the building, causing the alleged injury.

The defendant requested the judge to rule as follows: "1. The plaintiff has failed to produce evidence tending to show that he was in the exercise of due care when the accident occurred. 2. The plaintiff at the time of the accident was not in the exercise of his rights as a traveller."

The judge declined so to rule, but instructed the jury that in this case the question of due care on the part of the plaintiff, and the question whether or not he was a traveller, were questions of fact for them, and that there was evidence upon both points for them...