Readman v. Conway
Decision Date | 10 March 1879 |
Citation | 126 Mass. 374 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Laura S. Readman v. Thomas H. Conway & another |
Argued November 7, 1878
Essex. Tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff from a defect in a platform in front of a building on land owned by the defendants in Lawrence. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendants alleged exceptions, the substance of which appears in the opinion.
Exceptions overruled.
D Saunders & C. G. Saunders, for the defendants.
E. T Burley, for the plaintiff.
The defendants are the owners of a building, consisting of three shops or tenements, standing forty feet back from the line of Essex Street in Lawrence, and having a wooden platform extending from it to the sidewalk of Essex Street They made oral leases of these shops, each to a separate tenant. The platform had no fences or lines of any kind separating the parts thereof in front of the several shops from each other, but was entirely open, so that persons passed over it in any direction in going to either of the shops. The verdict of the jury establishes the fact that the plaintiff, while in the exercise of due care, was injured by a defect in the platform for which the person whose duty it was to keep it in repair was responsible, the only disputed question which is affected by the exceptions before us being whether her remedy was against the landlords or the tenant. The evidence was conflicting upon the question whether by the terms of the leases the landlords were to keep in repair the whole of the platform, or each tenant was to keep in repair the part in front of his shop.
In this state of the case, the defendants asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:
These requests state general propositions of law, which in many cases might be correct and sufficient. But in the case at bar the principal question in dispute was whether the tenants of the shops were the tenants or occupiers of the platform within the meaning of these rules of law. There was evidence which would justify the jury in finding that the platforms were not leased to the several tenants, but that the understanding was that they were constructed and were to be kept open and controlled by the landlords, for the common use of the occupants of all the shops and of the public. If they so found, the tenants would not be liable for defects in the platform, but the responsibility therefor would remain upon the landlords. Kirby v. Boylston Market Association, 14 Gray 249. Milford v. Holbrook, 9 Allen 17. Shipley v. Fifty Associates, 101 Mass....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trimble v. Spears
...them. McGinley v. Alliance Trust Co., 168 Mo. 257, 66 S.W. 153, 56 L.R.A. 334; Looney v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33, 37 Am.Rep. 295; Readman v. Conway, 126 Mass. 374. The facts speak for themselves; the law is so well settled that it is unnecessary to cite other authorities.' 90 Kan. at page 733,......
-
Mahnken v. Gillespie
... ... Lang v ... Hill, 157 Mo.App. 685; 36 C. J. 212; Milford v ... Holbrook, 9 Allen, 17; Peadman v. Conway, 126 ... Mass. 374; Shipley v. 50 Associates, 101 Mass. 251; St. Gemme ... v. Osterhaus (Mo. App.), 294 S.W. 1022 ... D ... ...
-
Miller v. Geeser
...v. Alliance Trust Co., 168 Mo. 257; Bender v. Weber, 250 Mo. 563; Looney v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33; Siggins v. McGill, 62 A. 411; Readman v. Conway, 126 Mass. 374; Burke v. Hulett, 216 Ill. 545; Sawyer v. McGillicuddy, 81 Me. 318; Dollard v. Roberts, 14 L. R. A. 238. (2) The duty of a landlor......
-
Tippecanoe Loan And Trust Company v. Jester
... ... Williamson ... (1906), 193 Mass. 92, 78 N.E. 737, 118 Am. St. 452; ... Looney v. McLean (1880), 129 Mass. 33, 37 ... Am. Rep. 295; Readman v. Conway (1879), 126 ... Mass. 374; Miller v. Hancock (1893), 2 Q ... B. 177; Hargroves v. Hartopp (1905), 1 K ... B. 472; McMartin ... ...